How Do You Feel About The Flu Shot?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

All my made up numbers. Africans that are in the sun for up to 15 hrs. a day, 365 days a year. Those are the only numbers I've brought, besides quoting naturalnews.com. I haven't made anything up. Seems as though what you are judging me of, is only to condemn yourself.

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.)

African Americans have one of the highest rates of skin cancer in America