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
-
rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
Actually, the NHS is not tracking deaths from flu. They are estimating them using same process as the CDC. This process is based on simply counting up extra deaths that happen during "flu season" without actually looking at death certificates or anything. There is NO actual tally of flu deaths. They don't even know if the flu vaccine has reduced deaths from flu in the UK or the US.
Where in the world did you come up with this? What does "extra deaths" even mean? It makes no sense.
Here is how both CDC and NHS estimate influenza mortality:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sources-of-uk-flu-data-influenza-surveillance-in-the-uk
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
It's a little more involved than just counting extra deaths.
Here's just one of many papers showing that influenza vaccine reduces mortality:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/30/peds.2016-4244
3 -
Yes I've read the CDC page and UK page you posted before. They both readily admit that they estimate the number of flu deaths and that the CDC doesn't know the actual numbers of deaths from the flu because of blah blah various reasons...so they take the number of actual deaths from flu and add in extra deaths from things like heart or respiratory failure that occur during flu season because it's assumed flu probably had something to do with it....assumed!rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
Actually, the NHS is not tracking deaths from flu. They are estimating them using same process as the CDC. This process is based on simply counting up extra deaths that happen during "flu season" without actually looking at death certificates or anything. There is NO actual tally of flu deaths. They don't even know if the flu vaccine has reduced deaths from flu in the UK or the US.
Where in the world did you come up with this? What does "extra deaths" even mean? It makes no sense.
Here is how both CDC and NHS estimate influenza mortality:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sources-of-uk-flu-data-influenza-surveillance-in-the-uk
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
It's a little more involved than just counting extra deaths.
Here's just one of many papers showing that influenza vaccine reduces mortality:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/30/peds.2016-4244
Here's a paper with more detail on the estimating process behind flu deaths in the UK.
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
When you look at the actual recorded number of deaths from seasonal flu, it is a really really low risk. We're talking less than a hundred people per year. And the vaccine is only 50% effective against four out of a million strains of flu....so yeah shot in the dark. All the scientists do is assume that we and Australia pass the same strains back and forth every year.
The pediatric paper was interesting, but the sample size is really very small...less than a hundred in each group so not very good science to draw a sweeping conclusion that the flu vaccine cuts risk of death in half. They even worded it very caveat ish....what with saying "estimated data suggests that" and so on, they were careful to not make a definitive statement but people tend to read more into it anyway.
Of course, the counter is why take any risk? Well there is science out there showing that repeated flu vaccines every year gradually become less effective. So I prefer to get a flu jab for specific pandemics as and when they occur. At this point. If they ever get around to a universal flu jab, I'll probably get it.
Prior season flu vaccines may interfere with current season vaccination. In other words, serial jabs year after year lower the effectiveness.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-shed-light-effects-serial-flu-shots-current-vaccines-benefits6 -
I don't get it and don't get the flu. My wife and kids get the flu shot and still get the flu.
Last season they all got the shot. I didn't. I didn't get the flu. They did.
Maybe my 2+ hour chlorine bath helps.4 -
I've gotten the flu shot every year for the last 15 years, I've never had any side effects or any issues. Anyone that does is fooling themselves, it's all mental. The flu shot works, I get it, My wife gets it, our three Children get it. Never had any issues or the flu.2
-
Against the flu shot. Every time I got the shot, I got sick.5
-
My kiddos have lung disease. In the first few years i nearly lost my daughter a couple times to flu. Watching doctors fight to intubate your baby is not fun
18 months ago i watched a 6 foot doctor do chest compressions on my tiny baby while staff rushed to get equipment. Ill never be able to forget that
We all get the vaccine yearly. The kids to try and prevent that happening again and as parenrs we get it 1. As an added layer of protection for the kids to stop us exposing them to the virus and 2. If we go down with it who will care for 2 additional needs kiddos0 -
Against the flu shot. Every time I got the shot, I got sick.
I assume "got sick" means the flu.
The shot doesn't give you the flu. The virus is dead. If you caught the flu on a year you got the shot, it was a different strain from the flu vaccine or you already had the virus and didn't have symptoms yet.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/misconceptions.htm
Can a flu shot give you the flu?
No, a flu shot cannot cause flu illness. Flu vaccines given with a needle are currently made in two ways: the vaccine is made either with a) flu vaccine viruses that have been ‘inactivated’ and are therefore not infectious, or b) with no flu vaccine viruses at all (which is the case for recombinant influenza vaccine). The most common side effects from the influenza shot are soreness, redness, tenderness or swelling where the shot was given. Low-grade fever, headache and muscle aches also may occur.
2 -
What exaclty is your point? You do realize that the people who come up with the these estimates are experts in their respective fields, virologists, immunologists, epidemiologists, and statiticians that know a hell of a lot more than you. Do have any resonable alternative to estimate influenza mortality and morbidity? How about provide some evidence that their numbers are wrong?
Yes I've read the CDC page and UK page you posted before. They both readily admit that they estimate the number of flu deaths and that the CDC doesn't know the actual numbers of deaths from the flu because of blah blah various reasons...so they take the number of actual deaths from flu and add in extra deaths from things like heart or respiratory failure that occur during flu season because it's assumed flu probably had something to do with it....assumed!rheddmobile wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »TeacupsAndToning wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
Bold - so have I. I'm not against vaccines, just don't see the point in getting ones that aren't recommended for me in the situation I'm in (which includes the general health guidance in my country and travel advice). I would have to pay for it regardless of income because it isn't recommended for me. Saying there is no reason not to get one is not the same as a reason to get one.
Glad you don't care about convincing anyone, but not sure why you're so keen on continuing to post "get your shots" unless you want me to do that! I'm not after warm fuzzy terms, I'm after a little bit of thought rather than blind "everyone must do this because it is the situation where I am/for me/in my country". I could probably do a fair job of explaining the colour of the sky myself, thanks...
Italic - I'm not anti science, anti vaccine or anti anything else. I follow my doctors' advice - NOT random strangers on the internet. I think that's a pretty good position to encourage. Why should I listen to you more than my country's health service? Do you really want to encourage people to do otherwise!?
What country do you live in?
I'm wondering what government wouldn't recommend getting a flu vaccine?
Someone posted upthread, before someone hijacked it to evangelize about their latest miracle cure, that in their country the flu is not as much of a problem, and his doctor confirmed it is only recommended there for people over 65 or those who have a compromised immune system. I don't remember which country though.
This is the case where I am in the UK. I've just checked and that also tallies with the WHO advice - it's recommended for certain groups at higher risk.
I know it would do no harm (bar the cost/time, which might not be trivial given insurance wouldn't cover it) but I do think it's dangerous to start folk down the path of listening more to stuff on the internet than their own medical professionals. This is harmless - the next thing might not be! I'm quite concerned in general about a decrease in trust of experts amongst the general public. It's not possible for anyone to weigh up the risk/benefits of everything that they do, so it's vital that we have people to make recommendations for complicated things and that we trust them.
As I mentioned before, the UK has the highest death rate from flu in Europe. It's not that flu is rare there, it's that your health service is not taking care of people. Death is often a good indication that medical professionals might be mistaken.
Actually, the NHS is not tracking deaths from flu. They are estimating them using same process as the CDC. This process is based on simply counting up extra deaths that happen during "flu season" without actually looking at death certificates or anything. There is NO actual tally of flu deaths. They don't even know if the flu vaccine has reduced deaths from flu in the UK or the US.
Where in the world did you come up with this? What does "extra deaths" even mean? It makes no sense.
Here is how both CDC and NHS estimate influenza mortality:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sources-of-uk-flu-data-influenza-surveillance-in-the-uk
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/disease/us_flu-related_deaths.htm
It's a little more involved than just counting extra deaths.
Here's just one of many papers showing that influenza vaccine reduces mortality:
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2017/03/30/peds.2016-4244
Here's a paper with more detail on the estimating process behind flu deaths in the UK.
http://straightstatistics.fullfact.org/article/flu-deaths-triumph-statistics-not-virology
Wow, you really are clueless. You've heard the expression, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, well I'm gonna need to see some evidence because I really believe you just made this upWhen you look at the actual recorded number of deaths from seasonal flu, it is a really really low risk. We're talking less than a hundred people per year.
Going to need to see some evidence that there are one million strains of the flu. It's not a shot in the dark. its an educated guess based on the current strains in the wildAnd the vaccine is only 50% effective against four out of a million strains of flu....so yeah shot in the dark.
Again, evidence for this BS.All the scientists do is assume that we and Australia pass the same strains back and forth every year.
To the bolded:The pediatric paper was interesting, but the sample size is really very small...less than a hundred in each group so not very good science to draw a sweeping conclusion that the flu vaccine cuts risk of death in half. They even worded it very caveat ish....what with saying "estimated data suggests that" and so on, they were careful to not make a definitive statement but people tend to read more into it anyway.
When we look at the actual paper that you are referring to about serial flu vaccines the same exact thing could be said about it. Did you actually read the one about serial vaccines? Here is the paper:
https://academic.oup.com/jid/article/2979766/Serial
So why is the paper you linked to good enough for you even though the authors don't say anything definitive and clearly state the caveats and weaknesses of their study but the one I link to you don't accept? I'll answer for you, you will only believe in information that agrees with your narrative and you'll disagree with anything that shows how your narrative is clearly wrong.
Also interesting that website you linked to had an article about the study i linked to that showed vaccines prevents pediatric deaths:
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/04/study-vaccine-halves-risk-death-flu-kids
Here's another study, among thousands on pubmed, showing vaccine effectivenss:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2728831/
I know you'll just handwave it away, so instead how about you show some evidence that the vaccine isn't effective. Lets see what ya got.
What risk? With citations, please.Of course, the counter is why take any risk?Well there is science out there showing that repeated flu vaccines every year gradually become less effective. So I prefer to get a flu jab for specific pandemics as and when they occur. At this point. If they ever get around to a universal flu jab, I'll probably get it.
Prior season flu vaccines may interfere with current season vaccination. In other words, serial jabs year after year lower the effectiveness.
http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2017/02/studies-shed-light-effects-serial-flu-shots-current-vaccines-benefits
Hmm.. this meta analysis shows the opposite:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5563917/
I'm sure you'll just handwave it away.
7 -
Avoid at all costs! My friend's dad died shortly after taking it. Your body is fully capable of tackling viruses, especially on a healthy diet.10
-
chantelledes3 wrote: »Avoid at all costs! My friend's dad died shortly after taking it. Your body is fully capable of tackling viruses, especially on a healthy diet.
And the medically noted cause of death on the death certicate was "Flu Shot"?
Everybody did something right before they died, that doesn't mean it caused their death.
And I'm sure the millions of people who have died over the years from variations of the flu will be thrilled to hear their bodies were perfectly capable of fighting off viruses
If only they'd drunk more organic green juice! 6 -
I don't get them. They always give me the flu. And maybe it isn't as bad as I would have it if I caught it, but they always GIVE ME THE FLU.5
-
Flu shots do not contain the live virus and cannot give you the flu.
How many times has this been repeated in this thread?
I am an immunocompromised individual, and I will get vaccinated, so whatever if you choose to get it or not, but you anti-vaxxers get me thinking and wondering about what else you potentially expose me to in the grocery store or on the street.
It's frightening to think about.8 -
Ah, to live in an age where the great viral killers of the past are relegated to ancient history. Of course viruses can kill people. Viruses even kill healthy people.
I think we are swiftly approaching a zero risk generation.
But then are people losing the ability to assess relative risk?
Probably the most hazardous thing people do daily is to drive to work. But how many people really think about what that means?2 -
Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.11
-
saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.2 -
saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.7 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.
Gale, you are a joke. No one on the boards takes you seriously. I've posted many studies, you just don't like them because they don't agree with your ridiculous narrative.
For the 6th time, where is that study that shows Vit D protects better than the flu that you keep beating on about?
Where is the proof that doctors don't support the flu vaccine?
Where is the proof that disease are caused by a mental state over time?
Anyone can scroll back up and see these idiotic claims of yours. I've asked you many times to prove them, you for some reason can't. That makes you a liar. Stop posting. No one believes anything you post.
9 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.
Gale, you are a joke. No one on the boards takes you seriously. I've posted many studies, you just don't like them because they don't agree with your ridiculous narrative.
Listen Gale,GaleHawkins wrote: »saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
Please, enlighten us, which ones are unnecessary and how are they dangerous? With the necessary citations to back up your nonsense of course. This should be good for a few laughs.
John we are still waiting on you to post any research by an independent research group that shows any validity to getting flu shots period.
She made the claim, she needs to support her nonsense. Stay out of it, you amateur.2 -
medscape.com/viewarticle/855937
"Summing Up the Data
A 2012 systematic review and meta-analysis[21] examined the efficacy and effectiveness of licensed influenza vaccines in patients with confirmed influenza illness. The authors confirmed that the original "recommendation to vaccinate the elderly was made without data for vaccine efficacy or effectiveness." The main message was that we need a better vaccine and better studies to demonstrate its effectiveness.
Despite the lack of high-quality data supporting the value of the flu shot, widespread vaccination policy might still be reasonable if observational studies consistently showed a benefit. However, the observational studies cited by flu shot proponents are frequently flawed.[22,23,24,25,26,27,28] In many studies, relevant clinical outcomes are ignored in favor of immunogenicity (ie, the ability to elicit an antibody response). "Influenza-like illness" (ie, cold symptoms) is frequently measured instead of serious outcomes, such as pneumonia or death. When these more serious outcomes are examined, there is often a failure to control for healthy user bias—the propensity for healthier people to do such things as receive annual check-ups, eat healthier foods, and get the flu shot. So, although it's true that people who get flu shots live longer, it may have nothing to do with actually getting the flu shot.
A 2005 study of a 33-season, national data set attempted to reconcile the reduced all-cause morbidity and mortality found in some observational studies of influenza vaccination with the fact that "national influenza mortality rates among seniors increased in the 1980s and 1990s as the senior vaccination coverage quadrupled."[29] In this study, the authors conclude that:
"[Our] estimates, which provide the best available national estimates of the fraction of all winter deaths that are specifically attributable to influenza, show that the observational studies must overstate the mortality benefits of the vaccine...[even during two pandemic seasons] the estimated influenza-related mortality was probably very close to what would have occurred had no vaccine been available."
The rationale for flu immunization as a national health priority is that influenza is a disease with serious complications, such as pneumonia, hospitalization, and death.[5,13,28] If the reason for influenza vaccination is that flu is such a serious disease, then the relevant outcomes are whether vaccination improves morbidity and mortality from flu. However, after decades of vaccine use, it is hard to detect any public health impact. This is in stark contrast to other routine vaccinations, such as polio and Haemophilus influenzae type b, where introduction of the vaccine led to obvious decline of the disease.
We are pediatricians, and we believe in childhood immunizations. Many vaccines have provided immense public health value. We simply question whether the policy of routine influenza vaccination has outpaced the data supporting its use.
Influenza vaccination now supersedes many other priorities of public health (such as obesity, illiteracy, and high school dropout), and we question whether so much time, effort, and money should be dedicated to flu vaccination while these other national healthcare priorities remain on the back burner."3 -
This content has been removed.
-
saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
anti-vaxx nonsense like this is responsible for untold death and suffering. Cut this *kitten* out.12 -
Welp, I had my this year's flu jab a month ago.
Nothing bad happened.
Thanks to @johnwelk for your tireless debunking. I hope you hear me cheering you on.
*so many gifs. such serious subject*
8 -
saltlakecitywestsider wrote: »Most shots are unnecessary and can even be dangerous.
anti-vaxx nonsense like this is responsible for untold death and suffering. Cut this *kitten* out.
Knock knock.
Who's there?
Not Polio.14 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I said this upstream and I will repeat it again:
Anyone in this thread who is saying they had the flu who is willing to have it again...
NEVER HAD THE FLU.
If you were not praying for death, you did not have the flu. You had a bad cold. Full stop.
If you had ever had the flu, you would move heaven and earth to never, ever have it again and to ensure your children never had it.
It is awful.
I say this as a person with a very much above average pain/discomfort tolerance. I cite as reference the fact that I had a broken ankle that I soldiered through with just OTC pain meds and ice packs because I couldn't tolerate the prescription pain meds.
The real flu is not something people who have had it are blithe about.
I've been to the emergency room twice - once for a brown recluse spider bite and once for the flu. The nurse kept telling me I couldn't have the flu, I'd had the flu shot. Eventually he concluded I did indeed have the flu. This was in 1990 and I haven't had the shot or the flu since.
I do take Vitamin D, but that's only been regular since I returned from seven years in Florida in 2011.
I'm not here to talk anyone else out of getting the shot, but explaining why I chose to not get it for myself.7 -
Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
HPV? Wow, that's dedication.0 -
kshama2001 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I said this upstream and I will repeat it again:
Anyone in this thread who is saying they had the flu who is willing to have it again...
NEVER HAD THE FLU.
If you were not praying for death, you did not have the flu. You had a bad cold. Full stop.
If you had ever had the flu, you would move heaven and earth to never, ever have it again and to ensure your children never had it.
It is awful.
I say this as a person with a very much above average pain/discomfort tolerance. I cite as reference the fact that I had a broken ankle that I soldiered through with just OTC pain meds and ice packs because I couldn't tolerate the prescription pain meds.
The real flu is not something people who have had it are blithe about.
I've been to the emergency room twice - once for a brown recluse spider bite and once for the flu. The nurse kept telling me I couldn't have the flu, I'd had the shot. Eventually he concluded I did indeed have the flu. This was in 1990 and I haven't had the shot or the flu since.
I do take Vitamin D, but that's only been regular since I returned from seven years in Florida in 2011.
I'm not here to talk anyone else out of getting the shot, but explaining why I chose to not get it for myself.
I'm confused by your story, are you saying you don't get the flu shot because of that emergency room nurse or because you got a strain of it that one year anyway?1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »Rosemary7391 wrote: »get your damn flu shots people, come on! Anti-Vaxxers are cancer.
Not getting a flu shot doesn't make you an anti-vaxxer any more than not getting your rabies shot, not getting the yellow fever jab, cholera etc etc does. It probably just means you don't live in an area where flu/rabies/yellow fever/cholera/etc is a major problem. I'm getting a bit annoyed that folks don't seem to want to distinguish and I don't think it helps to convince people who are genuinely anti vaccine either - lets face it, if they're in an area where flu isn't an issue it's one of the harder ones to convince them about since you have to go and get it every year and it's known it's a best guess effort. Measles is measles is measles - better to start there+similar I'd think?
nope, sorry, not buying it.
The "not an issue in my area" is a disingenuous cop out. We live in a massively interconnected planet. People travel to and from cities, states, entire countries. A flu epidemic could spread into an area where it's "not an issue" in a matter of days, and overwhelm the medical infrastructure.
Unless you live in a bubble, get your damn shots.
Have you had every vaccine going then? There are quite a few... I suspect if there was a flu epidemic it wouldn't be the strain that was in the vaccine - if it was then it wouldn't spread so quickly. If it was recommended for travel I would of course get it (as I have other vaccines), but I've just checked (for travel to the US) and it isn't.
Just think about this - you've annoyed me, and I'm for vaccines as recommended by the relevant medical practitioners. Do you think you're likely to persuade people who are really anti vaccines to join the queue every year with your current approach?
I have every vaccine that's ever been recommended to me by a doctor. Plus vaccines for HPV, Anthrax, Smallpox, and a few other misc picked up over the years.
There is simply NO scientifically sound reason not to get vaccines unless you have a very specific medical condition that would contraindicate them. None.
Flu shots especially, considering they're stupidly cheep and available for free to most people who can't afford the pittance they cost.
And I don't particularly care if my approach convinces anybody. If you bristle at my approach that's a problem with you. Would you question the color of the sky because I don't coddle you and try to explain it in warm and fuzzy terms? Maybe. That's not my problem.
Ditch the anti-science hokem and get your shots.
HPV? Wow, that's dedication.
I don't think it's unusual for a man to get that shot. My son will be getting it this year.4 -
kshama2001 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I said this upstream and I will repeat it again:
Anyone in this thread who is saying they had the flu who is willing to have it again...
NEVER HAD THE FLU.
If you were not praying for death, you did not have the flu. You had a bad cold. Full stop.
If you had ever had the flu, you would move heaven and earth to never, ever have it again and to ensure your children never had it.
It is awful.
I say this as a person with a very much above average pain/discomfort tolerance. I cite as reference the fact that I had a broken ankle that I soldiered through with just OTC pain meds and ice packs because I couldn't tolerate the prescription pain meds.
The real flu is not something people who have had it are blithe about.
I've been to the emergency room twice - once for a brown recluse spider bite and once for the flu. The nurse kept telling me I couldn't have the flu, I'd had the shot. Eventually he concluded I did indeed have the flu. This was in 1990 and I haven't had the shot or the flu since.
I do take Vitamin D, but that's only been regular since I returned from seven years in Florida in 2011.
I'm not here to talk anyone else out of getting the shot, but explaining why I chose to not get it for myself.
Yeah, this is a confusing story.
So you ended up in the ER because you had the flu. But you don't want a flu shot any more. That's...odd.
Flu shots are best-guesses as to the strain that may be around, but you can still catch other strains. I'll take some protection over none. I mean, there are virtually zero drawbacks to a flu shot.
5 -
cmriverside wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I said this upstream and I will repeat it again:
Anyone in this thread who is saying they had the flu who is willing to have it again...
NEVER HAD THE FLU.
If you were not praying for death, you did not have the flu. You had a bad cold. Full stop.
If you had ever had the flu, you would move heaven and earth to never, ever have it again and to ensure your children never had it.
It is awful.
I say this as a person with a very much above average pain/discomfort tolerance. I cite as reference the fact that I had a broken ankle that I soldiered through with just OTC pain meds and ice packs because I couldn't tolerate the prescription pain meds.
The real flu is not something people who have had it are blithe about.
I've been to the emergency room twice - once for a brown recluse spider bite and once for the flu. The nurse kept telling me I couldn't have the flu, I'd had the shot. Eventually he concluded I did indeed have the flu. This was in 1990 and I haven't had the shot or the flu since.
I do take Vitamin D, but that's only been regular since I returned from seven years in Florida in 2011.
I'm not here to talk anyone else out of getting the shot, but explaining why I chose to not get it for myself.
Yeah, this is a confusing story.
So you ended up in the ER because you had the flu. But you don't want a flu shot any more. That's...odd.
Flu shots are best-guesses as to the strain that may be around, but you can still catch other strains. I'll take some protection over none. I mean, there are virtually zero drawbacks to a flu shot.
The worse case of flu I've ever had was after getting the shot.1 -
kshama2001 wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »kshama2001 wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »I said this upstream and I will repeat it again:
Anyone in this thread who is saying they had the flu who is willing to have it again...
NEVER HAD THE FLU.
If you were not praying for death, you did not have the flu. You had a bad cold. Full stop.
If you had ever had the flu, you would move heaven and earth to never, ever have it again and to ensure your children never had it.
It is awful.
I say this as a person with a very much above average pain/discomfort tolerance. I cite as reference the fact that I had a broken ankle that I soldiered through with just OTC pain meds and ice packs because I couldn't tolerate the prescription pain meds.
The real flu is not something people who have had it are blithe about.
I've been to the emergency room twice - once for a brown recluse spider bite and once for the flu. The nurse kept telling me I couldn't have the flu, I'd had the shot. Eventually he concluded I did indeed have the flu. This was in 1990 and I haven't had the shot or the flu since.
I do take Vitamin D, but that's only been regular since I returned from seven years in Florida in 2011.
I'm not here to talk anyone else out of getting the shot, but explaining why I chose to not get it for myself.
Yeah, this is a confusing story.
So you ended up in the ER because you had the flu. But you don't want a flu shot any more. That's...odd.
Flu shots are best-guesses as to the strain that may be around, but you can still catch other strains. I'll take some protection over none. I mean, there are virtually zero drawbacks to a flu shot.
The worse case of flu I've ever had was after getting the shot.
Correlation? I say coincidence. I get shots every year and I've never had the flu.2
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