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.
Have you tried GLP1 medications and found it didn't work for you? We'd like to hear about your experiences, what you tried, why it didn't work and how you're doing now. Click here to tell us your story
Flu shots? For them or against ?
Replies
-
Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.7
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....5 -
I am for them this year. And next year. If I have a reason to get them I get them. Sometimes I'm too lazy. So if I'm going to be around people with weak immune systems I get them.
To be clear. I'm never against getting them. I'm just lazy (and I shouldn't be).1 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."6 -
I swear by them! 15 years ago I got the flu so bad I literally almost died. Of course I did not believe in flu shots. So since then I have gotten one every October. I have not had the flu since ---knock on wood.
4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.2 -
The ONLY reason I get the Flu vaccine is we get discounts off health ins premiums at work.0
-
I get one yearly and am neutral on it. Doesn't matter anyway, as I'm required by my employer to get one.0
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?2 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.3 -
The entire thing is just fear mongering to sell vaccines. Unlike the Measles vaccine, that has actually been proven to work by dramatically decreasing incidents of measles in vaccinated areas, the flu numbers have been steady since the 70s. How do you go from 10 million to 80 million vaccines a year and people are still having the same issues in the same prevalence? It's a joke.8
-
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults3 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
That includes industry-funded studies as well.1 -
janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »AlienMoon32 wrote: »Against, and I work in a hospital. Every year I take one I get sick as a dog for at least a week after it, but since I stopped like 8 years ago I have not had any issues with the flu. I honestly think they use them to inject the population with nanobots or other weird crap (kidding?). They aren't even effective in most cases for healthy adults.
What's the source for the lack of effectiveness in healthy adults?
Even the CDC has said it's not even effective half the time most years, and these are industry-funded studies.
Check their website for last winter's numbers and they have Vaccine Effectiveness at 19%....
One study for last year did show 19%, a study for the year before showed 52%. According to the CDC website, studies on adults show effectiveness ranging from 16-76%. I think it's stretching the facts to say that they aren't effective in "most cases."
I guess, but 9 out of 12 of the years included in that study it hasn't been better than rolling a dice, and even then just barely. Again I would like to point out that these are actual studies conducted by the industry, and that's the best they could cherry pick? You get them if you want, but I'm not convinced enough to expose myself to whatever is in them that makes me horribly ill.
If you're arguing that the numbers are "cherry picked" and unreliable because they are from the "industry," it seems odd to also use those numbers as a basis for the argument that the flu shot is not effective for most people. Do you believe these studies are accurate?
No, I don't think they are accurate at all, but my point was that was the best they could do and it is straight crap.
Are there any studies on the efficacy of the flu vaccine that you do accept? I'm taken aback by you introducing specific studies to make your point and then later telling me that you don't accept them as accurate. Let's base this conversation on the studies that you do accept.
Cochrane Collaboration does a decent one. What that found was that most official reports on effectiveness were shoddy at best.
http://www.cochrane.org/CD001269/ARI_vaccines-to-prevent-influenza-in-healthy-adults
That includes industry-funded studies as well.
Yes, and publicly funded studies also, to show the bias. And the most interesting part of that is that even though they included these multiple biased studies, they still couldn't find more than a "very modest" legit benefit for taking this vaccine. Which is the point I was trying to make by introducing the CDC data.4 -
AlienMoon32 wrote: »The entire thing is just fear mongering to sell vaccines. Unlike the Measles vaccine, that has actually been proven to work by dramatically decreasing incidents of measles in vaccinated areas, the flu numbers have been steady since the 70s. How do you go from 10 million to 80 million vaccines a year and people are still having the same issues in the same prevalence? It's a joke.
You clearly have no idea how complicated immunology is, nor how different measles is from influenza.
Measles is genetically stable - little to no need to develop new vaccines against emerging strains. Plus, one sufficiently severe natural infection is sufficient to confer immunity, like with mumps, smallpox, chicken pox. It is relatively simple to figure out how to attenuate such a virus to create a highly successful and long-lasting vaccine. No coincident immunological priming needed. There's a reason this is the type of virus we first managed to vaccinate against (Pasteur and cowpox/smallpox).
On the other hand, influenza is genetically unstable, with new strains that have altered surface antigens popping up regularly. So, even if you could follow the same mechanism as for measles and just inject an attenuated virus for long-term and highly successful vaccine it does you little good as you'd need another vaccine in the next year anyway. However, you can't just inject or inhale attenuated flu virus and get immunity. Why? Because the mechanism of immunological response to flu infection is different from that of measles. In order to get immunity, the vaccine has to be developed to stimulate the immune system in ways the attenuated flu virus alone does not. One way to do that is with adjuvants, but it's mostly trial and error to find the right combination. An adjuvant that works well for one vaccine may fail miserably for another. There may be no adjuvant approved for use that confers a high rate of seroconversion. Study of adjuvants is ongoing.
Case in point, I worked with a lead scientist for one of the pharma companies that develops and sells a particular hepatitis vaccine. From efficacy studies, it was known that 90+% of people under the age of 60 demonstrated successful seroconversion to this vaccine, but if you were over 60, you had < 30% seroconversion rate. Of course, they sold the vaccine for years with notes to that effect and it was no worse than anyone else's vaccine available at the time. This lead decided to develop and test a new vaccine with a different adjuvant. The new version showed successful seroconversion in > 85% of all participants regardless of age. Why? Unknown at the time, and currently unpublished. We were looking at transcriptional changes in whole blood and in particular populations of immunologically relevant blood cells for clues to a mechanism of action.
edit: removing bits on native flu conferring immunity - incorrect wording13 -
No, you're right, I'm not an immunologist. My point is that flu vaccines show a low level of effectiveness compared to other vaccinations (like measles or many others), hence there being an actual purpose for the other vaccines which I have no problem getting. I understand that they are completely different but the end result of all of them needs to be some sort of proven effectiveness beyond tossing your hopes in the wind and praying. So far I have seen nothing to point to a flu vaccine being much better than that, on this thread or in any other places.
And I'm not willing to just inject random stuff into my body based on yearly "trial and error" and no convincing results as of yet.7 -
furthermore, I feel even if it does not stop the flu, if it can cushion the dreadful effects somewhat it is def worth it. so a "little jab a do ya" mentality for me.4
-
for, if you can protect yourself and kids, then why not.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 413 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions