How Do You Feel About The Flu Shot?

mrrad

To all the people who think the common cold is the flu, you have never had the flu or seen someone you care about with flu.

It kills lots of people every year.

The vaccine does not give you flu it is dead. The people who says it did got a cold as these often get passed around at the same time of year as the flu vaccine.

All the talk of keeping your immune system strong with supplements instead is total nonsense, the best way of preventing viruses is washing your hands and not touching your face.

As someone already said if you are sick with anything contagious stay at home. Keep away from your loved ones and keep hydrated.

Herd immunity is vital as some people cannot have vaccines. If you can have any vaccine then my opinion is that you should.

fteale

Yeah, I have a geeky spot in my heart for science too. It's funny though you mention rumor or myths regarding vaccines, when many people I know who work in the health care field themselves do not get or straight out refuse to get the vaccinations. My best friend is a pharmacist for a Health Sciences Center here, she doesn't get the flu shot, nor do any of her kids. Wonder why that is...

She's probably just misinformed.

By your logic no doctor would ever smoke or be fat either.

4thehardman

I can't have the shot. I can't have any shots. If I could. I would have the flu shot.

Givemewings

I had one this year by choice. I don't see a problem with it.

agthorn

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

SarabellPlus3

Yes, and all of the long term studies I've read are nothing but negative.
However, in the past few years since the swine flu, more people are being vaccinated, demand for vaccines is higher, people are being pressured into getting stabbed, and paranoia is sky high.
Curious if you know how much the vaccine has changed if at all?

Can you link to them for me, please? From reliable sources anyway, I have not seen this to be true in any way, so I would want to read that for myself. (that is said flat, no tone, no snark. )

---

As far as "I know a pharmacist, and he/she doesn't like the shot, so there," goes... Well, it doesn't go far. I'll see your pharmacist friend, and raise you an Ivy-educated immunologist, educated far beyond any doctors in my life (all of whom, btw, endorse and recieve the flu shot). We could play that game for a long time, but the anti-s aren't going to win that one. There aren't as many doctors against the flu shot-- many more are for. And you'll find some who aren't-- guess what? I can find some who seem to be ignorant on antibiotic overuse, and still dole amoxicillin rXs out like candy. Doesn't negate the FACT that they shouldn't be.

Doctors are always pro drugs.

That's... not true. I'm fairly hippy myself, but I don't think my immunologist friend who has no personal interest in promoting flu shot manufacturers for any kind of throw-back or anything of that nature is lying to me for no reason.

Well, honestly, I was going to look at your info, but a youtube video of a rap isn't evidence to me. You're disputing everything I've read and researched, with a pretty well-(if not over-)educated background, with that as your back-up; it's just not convincing.

Really? I was kidding.

Thank God. LOL I only watched 2 seconds, but you frankly can't put it past people to use something like that-- look at some of the other responses here. [eta: I mean, really. Someone just told us that the "obvious" difference between pre- & post-European colonized America is the current vaccination program.]

Now I just need a few other vehemently anti-flu vaccination posters to also say that they were kidding in thier posts, and my faith in humanity may be restored.

eta: though, I'm left wondering is redirecting with a joke a way of saying "nothing scientific backs up my claims?" I'm just curious if I should keep waiting for any logical evidence.

b00b0084

I am anit-flu shot and always will be

lizgreenhill

I have asthma and i do not get it only because i get the flu 2 days later and i get horrible upper respatory infections and am hospitalized for a few days. I dont think you should get it if you dont want to Im sorry that your boss is making you get it they should not make you do something that you dont want to do.

caison

I don't trust them, I never will. I got one this year because of the line of work I'm in...but as soon as I'm out of here (within a year or so...) I will NEVER get one again.

M3CH4N1C

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

M3CH4N1C

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

You don't have proof that is only western diet, and not a combination of all of the above. You just don't have the proof and you never will. I believe in science, but I don't have faith in it. People who have PhD's and think they can play God are just not to be trusted. Not all Doctors are bad people, but just because you have a PhD doesn't make you a good person, doesn't make you know everything, and doesn't make you correct about everything. Statistics and research can be manipulated. You give some valid points though about no doctors in Africa to diagnose. But I do believe there was a study of a tribe in Africa(can't find it) where these people have relatively no shade 365 days a year, and from that suggested that environment of African Americans was conducive for health problems. To me it's obvious that modern science does just as much harm as it does good.

KimDoberman

Years ago the flu shot was only recommended for high risk groups, and now...they want 6 month old babies on up to get this shot. I personally am against flu shots and I have NEVER had the flu. I really believe it is a huge money maker for the drug companies out there. Do the math.

If I were in your position, I would see a lawyer because you should NOT have to be forced to place this into your body against your will. I also know that there are other companies out there that tried to get away with this policy and they failed due to threats of being sued. What next if we keep yielding to this type of hype and pressure? Stick to your guns, there are many of us out there on your side. Keep us posted. Kim

agthorn

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

You don't have proof that is only western diet, and not a combination of all of the above. You just don't have the proof and you never will.

Oh really?

"The price that Native Americans pay for turning their back on their traditional diet in terms of their rate of diabetes is tremendous. They are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites of similar age. " http://www.mendosa.com/native.htm

"Removed from their lands and forced to assimilate into Western culture, many native people no longer live in their traditional territories nor do they eat their traditional foods. Sugar, flour, cheese and domesticated meats have become the staple diet, and nutritional-related diseases such as Type II diabetes have become epidemics as native people become more and more dependent on foreign Western foods that our bodies were never meant to manage." http://www.nativeland.org/native_circle.html

"The Indian Health Service Diabetes Program believes that Type II Diabetes can be effectively treated and possibly even prevented by appropriate lifestyle modifications. The Program lists the four causes for diabetes as follows: genetic tendency, inactivity, obesity, and a diet high in sugar." http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.htm

So, the Indian Health Service and tribal groups all seem to agree that dietary changes have been primarily responsible for the rapid increase in health problems (mostly related to diabetes) among Native Americans. Now, where is your proof that vaccines are the cause?

agthorn

People who have PhD's and think they can play God are just not to be trusted. Not all Doctors are bad people, but just because you have a PhD doesn't make you a good person, doesn't make you know everything, and doesn't make you correct about everything.

The only reason I mentioned my PhD was because it was directly related to refuting your wildly false skin cancer statistic. Seeing as how I work in an office now, I don't really get much chance to "play God", whatever that means. And whether or not I'm a good person, which you have no idea because I'm just a random person on the internet, has no bearing on my ability to evaluate and present factual information.

Iceskatefanrn

The following is my opinion - it is not intended to discount anyone else's opinion on this board... I'm always happy to participate in an open discussion where various people have various opinions, and I believe every person here has a right to what they believe.

It is obvious that opinions on this issue are passionate - mine is no less. So in the interest of education, I offer the following information. (If you don't want to read through all of this, please at least take a peek at the chart at the bottom - I find this information very significant!)

For the "vaccines cause autisim" issue -

http://www.examiner.com/grandparenting-in-national/dr-andrew-wakefield-of-vaccines-cause-autism-notoriety-barred-from-practicing-medicine-uk

This article is about the doctor that first published his "research' that "proved" this link. His research has since been completely disproven and discredited, and he was found guilty of a variety of professional misconduct behaviors, and his license has been completely revoked.

Unfortunately because of the information he published, there was a sharp decline in the use of the measles vaccine in children - and now there are kids that have DIED from the measles that didn't have to.

As for hospitals requiring the flu shot for their employees - it is unfortunate the we live in such a litigious society, but that is a fact. If a patient is in the hospital for something non-infectious, say a broken bone... and they happend to also have asthma... then they come down with the flu and die... and the flu was linked to a healthcare worker at the hospital who was offered a flu shot but declined it... and the patient that died was YOUR loved one... would you not want to sue the hell out of that hospital AND that employee that transmitted the flu to your loved one? Would that not be considered an unnecessary death from the flu, that was directly caused by a healthcare worker, in a place that you would expect the safest of care?

Vaccinating employees that come in contact with patients is not just needed to prevent lawsuits... but because it's the right thing to do for the patient population. Providing a save environment includes traning employees on washing their hands, wearing gowns and gloves when dealing with infectious patients, and vaccinating healthcare workers.

This article outlines the SHEA paper on the subject, recommending vaccination for all Health Care Personnel, comparing workers that refuse to vaccinate to someone that refuses to scrub up before participating in an operating procedure:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/656558

As for the flu vaccine causing the flu itself - There is no existing credible research that proves the flu shot causes the flu. I could just as easily say "I used my microwave oven this morning, then this afternoon I was sick with the flu, so my microwave oven must have caused it". Those with personal experience of catching the flu after getting the vaccine were likely incubating the flu virus when they received the vaccine, or came in contact with it shortly after receiving the vaccine - which takes 2 weeks to take full effect - they would have likely come down with the flu without getting the vaccine since they were already infected. This again is my opinion, based on the available medical research that I have reviewed. Here's an article discussing this and other flu myths:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2006-09-25-flu-myths_x.htm

And here's a general-info page on Influenza complications:

http://www.nfid.org/pdf/influenza/leadingcomplications.pdf

Now I'm going to repeat some things I posted earlier...

Vaccines save lives. Statistics prove this. (see chart posted below).

Vaccines are safe. There are very, very few true vaccine-related injuries/illnesses.

No vaccine is 100% safe. Read that again if you have to... I"m totally PRO vaccine, but I'm not gonna lie... NO vaccine is 100% safe. BUT..., very few medical interventions are 100% safe. SO... you've gotta think about the risk vs the results.

Statistically speaking, the risks associated with ANY vaccine are much, MUCH lower than the risk of outcomes of getting the disease, or spreading the disease to someone with a compromised immune system.

Financially speaking, vaccines save money. According to an extensive cost-benefit analysis by the CDC, every dollar spent on immunization saves $6.30 in direct medical costs, with an aggregate savings of $10.5 billion. When including indirect costs to society -- a measurement of losses due to missed work, death and disability as well as direct medical costs -- the CDC notes that every dollar spent on immunization saves $18.40, producing societal aggregate savings of $42 billion

One more point - check out this chart that shows the diseases that are GONE GONE GONE, BECAUSE of vaccines:



I'm an RN, I wash my hands constantly, I use gowns and gloves to protect my patients, and I get my flu vaccine every year. I also have my Measles titer checked regularly and receive that vaccine when my titers are low - I think I've had the Measles vaccine 3 or 4 times over my 30 year career I also JUMPED at the chance to get the Tdap vaccine a few years ago (Tetanus, Diptheria, And Pertussus).

Stay Healthy everyone!

:drinker: :drinker: :drinker:

Ice

foremant86

I can't remember the last time i got a flu shot, high school probably?

i haven't had the flu in 4 years.

SarabellPlus3

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

M3CH4N1C

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

Now you're just making stuff up? Not sure what skin cancer even has to do with vaccines (answer: nothing), but I did my PhD in melanoma biology. African Americans have a skin cancer rate of less than 2 per 100,000 people for either sex. White American males have a skin cancer rate of about 25 per 100,000, and white American females have a skin cancer rate of about 17 in 100,000. (http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/statistics/race.htm) Tribes in Africa don't "die" from "skin cancer" because there's no doctor to diagnose it and no autopsy to provide a cause of death. The rare person there that does actually die from skin cancer just dies. And Native Americans are plagued with health problems because of adopting a western diet, not technology or western medicine.

You don't have proof that is only western diet, and not a combination of all of the above. You just don't have the proof and you never will.

Oh really?

"The price that Native Americans pay for turning their back on their traditional diet in terms of their rate of diabetes is tremendous. They are 2.6 times more likely to have diabetes than non-Hispanic whites of similar age. " http://www.mendosa.com/native.htm

"Removed from their lands and forced to assimilate into Western culture, many native people no longer live in their traditional territories nor do they eat their traditional foods. Sugar, flour, cheese and domesticated meats have become the staple diet, and nutritional-related diseases such as Type II diabetes have become epidemics as native people become more and more dependent on foreign Western foods that our bodies were never meant to manage." http://www.nativeland.org/native_circle.html

"The Indian Health Service Diabetes Program believes that Type II Diabetes can be effectively treated and possibly even prevented by appropriate lifestyle modifications. The Program lists the four causes for diabetes as follows: genetic tendency, inactivity, obesity, and a diet high in sugar." http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/bindon/ant570/Papers/King/king.htm

So, the Indian Health Service and tribal groups all seem to agree that dietary changes have been primarily responsible for the rapid increase in health problems (mostly related to diabetes) among Native Americans. Now, where is your proof that vaccines are the cause?

Never said that vaccines cause diabetes, thats because of high process foods (carbs). They don't have other health problems? You do make a good point that if there were no evidence of what people died from then how do we know if what has changed now is the cause (your response about Africans having no doctors). Research studies, statistics, numbers can be manipulated. There are studies that show vaccines are beneficial and harmful. You just don't hear as much of the harmful results of study, because those people hardly have enough money to conduct the study, less alone promote their findings. Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%. 1.5 of 100 just sounds like it is really a stretch that it even works for anybody at all. Like I said, I believe in science but don't have faith in it. If you want to put faith in an industry that is burying our health freedoms in a stack legislative paperwork, that's your choice, but I will continue to voice my opinions and thats my choice.

M3CH4N1C

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

I implied that health problems have been popping up ever since and that you don't know what the causes are, so how can you eliminate vaccinations as a problem. You can't. It's an ongoing study. It's scientific research, not medical law.

christine24t

Not everyone is lucky enough to be able to get the flu shot. My daughter has an egg allergy and is asthmatic. Getting the flu can be very dangerous for her, but the shot could be even more dangerous (due to her allergy). I like to hope most people would consider getting the shot so they don't infect her while we are walking around the grocery store or other public place. Some people may not care about getting the flu, but it is a very big deal to others who don't have the choice to get vaccinated.

I am sorry to hear about your daughter and I agree..we need herd immunity for people who can't get the shot themselves.

I don't like flu shots. I've never had one in my life. My kids don't get them. My husband doesn't get it. My family got the H1N1 last year, and we survived. We felt miserable for a little while, slept a lot, drank lots of water and vegged out together, took our fever meds, and got over it. We relied on our immune systems, and they worked just the way they were supposed to.

The flu shot isn't even guaranteed to work. It's a guess. Loaded with a mega dose of mercury. Mmmmm. Delightful. Don't you dare throw out one of those mercury light bulbs in the regular trash, but let's all be forced to get a shot full of mercury? Doesn't seem right to me...

The amount of thimerosal is very minute, but if you are very worried you could ask for one of the types without thimerosal, like the FluMist.

Loaded with a mega dose of mercury.

Not going to start an argument about the safety of thimerosal. But the FluMist nasal spray vaccine and all single-dose vials do not contain thimerosal.

and we survived

Lucky you. Approximately 36,000 people a year are not so lucky.

Thank you for this - so true.

I do work in a hospital but still....it has always been our choice as to whether we wanted one or not. The Dr.'s will argue all day that it doesn't make you sick but there are certain people who seem to get the flu after having the shot. I mean what if the strand isn't dead? What if the guess is wrong and you get the flu anyway? The side effects are cold/flu like symptoms.. I'm not really argueing their point but I don't even take tylenol-I have suffered through pain several times- I just don't like putting things into my body. One day I may regret feeling that way but its just how I feel.
The whole swine flu shot came out immediately-I just don't think they really had enough time to test it.
My only way out is a written excuse from my doctor which I contacted toay LOL, I highly doubt that he will approve that but it was worth a try for the sake of my job I will take it and if I do get ill-someone will hear about it!! I mean that in a nice way!

If you work in a hospital, you are around sick people, and while you might not want one, you do not want to be the one that spreads the flu to patients, even if you are not in direct contact with them. If you work at any other type of facility and do not want to get one, okay, I won't sit and argue with you. But if you work in a medical facility and don't get one, that is irresponsible.

It is impossible to get the flu from the flu shot. The virus is inactivated and dead. The nasal spray one is live, so technically it could happen that you get the flu from that, but still very unlikely. Just wanted to make that clear!

I'm not argueing your point at all because I hear this all the time but what I don't understand is why certain people get the flu after the shot.

The flu shot contains the most prevalent strains of the flu out there...might not include the one that you happen to come down with. It's not that the shot is CAUSING the flu. it is just that you are not protected against that one strain you happened to get.

SarabellPlus3

I look forward to hearing findings in the next ten years on the effects the flu shot has had.

Why 10 years from now? We've been vaccinating people for influenza since the 1940s.

And new health problems have been popping up ever since. Native Americans are plagued with health problems. Before technology and modern medical science influenced their lifestyles they were a culture that was relatively free of sickness and disease. African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America, yet tribes in Africa that stand in the sun for 15 hrs. a day straight have very low rates of skin cancer, if no skin cancer at all. The variables are obvious.

If you're looking for the obvious variables, then SURELY you mean the HUGE dietary and lifestyle changes at large that have happened also in that time frame, not to mention the intruduction of new peoples with new genes and new viruses.

I'm sorry, but you guys lose me so quickly. I'm pretty hippy. I won't say how long I breastfed for. LOL But surely you know by now that correlation does not prove causation? It is so short-sighted to think any of the above is convincingly linked to vaccinations. And conveniently leaving out how many countless lives have been saved by them, no less.

The proof is in the pudding. You can't pick and choose what variables you see fit for an honest debate, unless you are manipulating.

I actually don't disagree with THAT statement, but that's not what you said, you implied real clearly that vaccines were the "obvious" change in society, and therefore the reason problems exist that didn't before.

Ignoring the fact that new populations were introduced (mixing not only germs, but DNA), new lifestyles & diets adoped, all kinds of huge changes, which frankly are a lot more likely suspects, just logistically thinking, than vaccinations. Of course also ignoring the historical fact that things simply weren't dX'd "back then," and that's as big an issue. Take Autism, people like to make this connection to vaccinations which has NEVER been clinically shown by anything convincing, and people think it didn't exist back then, ignoring the reality of the fact that Autistic kids would have simply been tragically undiagnosed "back then," unless they were practically catatonic. It seems likely that there weren't as many kids with Autism then, but the number simply can't be known.

There have been such a myriad of changes, it can't truly be known right now *why* my mom (for instance) has MS now, which didn't exist then-- if it's diet, lifestyle, environmental, vaccinations, some mix of the above, or anything else, JUST AS LIKELY is the FACT that "back then" she would have just been dXd as old, tired, or lazy, and would have died undX'd & not gone in any books as an MS patient. MS is actually a good example, because it seems more logical that it might be related to taxing the immune system than something like skin cancer or your other examples. Another thing people fail to weigh in thier thoughts sometimes is how she might well be dead of Polio, without the vaccination she took.

So at the end of the day, I'm not super pro-vax in theory, but in practice, the PROVEN, KNOWN good (great) outweighs the feared, possible, maybe/someday, mostly imaginary bad to me. I don't think people should legally be required to get the flu shot, but I think it's kind practice to avoid passing it to others it will kill.

I implied that health problems have been popping up ever since and that you don't know what the causes are, so how can you eliminate vaccinations as a problem. You can't. It's an ongoing study. It's scientific research, not medical law.

You're right, and I can't prove it wasn't aliens, either. No proving negatives.

But in all seriousness, I do agree with this most recent quote of yours. No, I can't prove it wasn't vaccinations. But I have to weigh the very real benefits with the possible, implied, maybe/someday costs. Still, I know what you're saying, and I do agree with that part.

agthorn

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

M3CH4N1C

You seem pretty level headed:) Some people say" well I'm not a Doctor so I'll just do what the Doctor says." I feel as if that is apathetic and that education doesn't equate wisdom and truth. It's dangerous when people give up on thinking for themselves and trust a strangers words just because of a plaque on his/her wall. It creates a situation to where it becomes status quo to just do what somebody else says, in a world where corporate greed have their hands all over the world of medicine.

Elizabeth_C34

I am very close to my grandparents, so I get my flu shot every year. I've not had the flu in almost 10 years. My grandfather had influenza a couple of years ago that kept him hospitalized for almost 2 weeks. It kills a lot of elderly, children, and others whose immune systems aren't that strong.

Sure, if you're healthy, you can fight it off, but you can also end up being carrier and dump it off on someone who can't.

M3CH4N1C

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

Oh I meant naturalnews.com. Sorry.

mrsdauer

do what YOU want to do. i dont think anyone is MAKING you do it...... after seeing my 12 year old son (who DID NOT get the flu shot) and my cousin also, both have the flu...i think i'd rather be immunized. the 5 day flu, uncontrollable diarrhea, high fever, vomitting, unable to keep fluid or food down....
ya, i think the few seconds it takes to get a shot is much better...

i guess weigh out the pro and con of it, do what you believe is the right thing, and go with it. best of luck.

~hand washing often is the key!!!, flu shot or not!

M3CH4N1C

How many people are harmed by influenza vaccines?

Much the same is true with vaccines. In this influenza vaccine study just published in The Lancet, it shows that you have to inject 100 adults to avoid influenza in just 1.5 adults. But what they don't tell you is the side effect rate in all 100 adults!

It's very likely that upon injecting 100 adults with vaccines containing chemical adjuvants (inflammatory chemicals used to make flu vaccines "work" better), you might get 7.5 cases of long-term neurological side effects such as dementia or Alzheimer's. This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved.

So for every 100 adults you injected with this flu vaccine, you prevent the flu in 1.5 of them, but you cause a neurological disorder in 7.5 of them! This means you are 500% more likely to be harmed by the flu vaccine than helped by it. (A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)

Much the same is true with mammograms, by the way, which harm 10 women for every 1 woman they actually help (http://www.naturalnews.com/020829.html).

Chemotherapy is also a similar story. Sure, chemotherapy may "shrink tumors" in 80% of those who receive it, but shrinking tumors does not prevent death. And in reality, chemotherapy eventually kills most of those who receive it. Many of those people who describe themselves as "cancer survivors" are, for the most part, actually "chemo survivors."


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html#ixzz1di0h8FcQ

Iceskatefanrn

"This is an estimate, by the way, used here to illustrate the statistics involved."

"(A theoretical example only. This study did not contain statistics on the harm of vaccines.)"

I'm sorry, but I'll take my above quoted statistics on the drastically reduced death rates that are a direct result of vaccines, over 'estimates" and "theoretical examples".

agthorn

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

Oh I meant naturalnews.com. Sorry.

Sigh. Okay I'll bite one last time. I assume you're referencing http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html, which is referencing http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext.

Your article is trying to make something sensational about the distinction between ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE risk reduction, and conflating it with efficacy. There's nothing shocking here. Yes, the absolute risk reduction of the flu vaccine, for people who were actually exposed to influenza during the season they were vaccinated, is about 1.5 per 100. But the size of the pooled studies is sufficiently large that we can assume that roughly equal numbers were exposed to the virus in both groups (2.7%, based on the control group. That's the whole PURPOSE of the control group - to know what the prevalence is in the population, because it's fairly unethical to deliberately infect people with influenza). The relative risk reduction is therefore roughly 60% - meaning you have a 60% less chance of contracting the flu with the vaccine than without. The vaccine is 60% EFFECTIVE at preventing influenza (the Lancet article says 59%).

But risk is meaningless unless we look at both sides of the coin. For every million people we vaccinate, we will have 15,000 fewer cases of the flu and approximately 4 vaccine-induced injuries (allergic reaction, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalomyelitis). For every 100 vaccine induced injuries, there will be approximately 6 deaths. So we would have to vaccinate 25M people to statistically have 100 vaccine-induced injuries and 6 deaths. But we will have prevented 375,000 cases of influenza and 375 influenza-related deaths (seasonal influenza has a mortality rate of 0.1%). The flu vaccine is therefore 63,000% safer than the flu.

I've provided actual numbers, instead of all of your made-up numbers.

Iceskatefanrn

Go to healthnews.com with Mike Adams and search for "flu shots". You'll find plenty of counter research that suggests flu shots are harmful, unproven, and dangerous. In fact one study shows influenza shots were effective in 1.5 out of 100. Big pharma claims much higher than that at around 60%.

I went to healthnews.com and searched for "flu shots" as you directed. All I found were articles on 1) the CDC urging people (particularly health care workers) to get flu shots, 2) a survey stating that most US doctors plan to get them, 3) research stating that flu shots are safe for pregnant women and that they provide benefits to the baby as well, 4) research showing a connection between flu shots and reduced risk of heart attack in the elderly, 5) research into a 'universal' flu shot that people would only have to get once instead of seasonally.

In fact, from your own recommended site, I also found a study that showed that the effectiveness of the flu vaccine ranged from 63-84%:
"Over six months, 42 Optaflu recipients -- or 1.1 percent of the group -- reported flu-like symptoms and had a flu infection confirmed by objective testing. That figure was 1.3 percent in the conventional-vaccine group and 3.6 percent in the placebo group. Overall, the cell-based vaccine was 84 percent effective against the three flu strains included in the shot, versus the placebo; the conventional vaccine was 78 percent effective. When it came to all circulating flu strains for the season, both vaccines, predictably, were less effective: the cell-based shot was 69 percent effective, compared with the placebo, and the conventional vaccine 63 percent." http://www.healthnews.com/en/news/Newer-flu-vaccine-as-effective-as-traditional-one/1ZYA3fssX9iAU$vEwA50Sz/

So, I think I'm done here.

Oh I meant naturalnews.com. Sorry.

Sigh. Okay I'll bite one last time. I assume you're referencing http://www.naturalnews.com/033998_influenza_vaccines_effectiveness.html, which is referencing http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(11)70295-X/fulltext.

Your article is trying to make something sensational about the distinction between ABSOLUTE and RELATIVE risk reduction, and conflating it with efficacy. There's nothing shocking here. Yes, the absolute risk reduction of the flu vaccine, for people who were actually exposed to influenza during the season they were vaccinated, is about 1.5 per 100. But the size of the pooled studies is sufficiently large that we can assume that roughly equal numbers were exposed to the virus in both groups (2.7%, based on the control group. That's the whole PURPOSE of the control group - to know what the prevalence is in the population, because it's fairly unethical to deliberately infect people with influenza). The relative risk reduction is therefore roughly 60% - meaning you have a 60% less chance of contracting the flu with the vaccine than without. The vaccine is 60% EFFECTIVE at preventing influenza (the Lancet article says 59%).

But risk is meaningless unless we look at both sides of the coin. For every million people we vaccinate, we will have 15,000 fewer cases of the flu and approximately 4 vaccine-induced injuries (allergic reaction, Guillain-Barré syndrome, and encephalomyelitis). For every 100 vaccine induced injuries, there will be approximately 6 deaths. So we would have to vaccinate 25M people to statistically have 100 vaccine-induced injuries and 6 deaths. But we will have prevented 375,000 cases of influenza and 375 influenza-related deaths (seasonal influenza has a mortality rate of 0.1%). The flu vaccine is therefore 63,000% safer than the flu.

I've provided actual numbers, instead of all of your made-up numbers.

Love this response, thank you for sharing in such a documented, proven way.