How Do You Feel About The Flu Shot?

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

Real statistics: Death rate from influenza = 0.1%. Death rate from influenza vaccine = 0.000024%.

Real numbers from corrupt research maybe. Besides there is more to worry about than death with these vaccines. Hecks, if you only died then they wouldn't be half bad.

I think you ought to read more science and less opinion.

Okay I read the first three pages of comments on this....

First and foremost I would like to say I am in favor of vaccines, but I'm also a statistics girl.....and nobody has brought this point up in the first three pages of comments I read so hopefully I am not repeating what someone else has said.

The single reason I do not get a flu shot is that they start working on NEXT YEARS flu shot, RIGHT NOW! Okay now I'm sorry but I have a degree in Medical Laboratory Technology. I'm not stupid, I work with Doctors, nurses, the elderly and the sick. But you can not tell me that the folks in the laboratory at the CDC can predict the flu that will strike next year, when the weather man can't accurately predict the weather all the time.

Here's the deal they take the most likely 20 strains of flu that they think will hit next year based off of numbers and calculations from statisiticians and mathematical wizzes and say "Use these 20, to make your shot"

Sorry there are billions of strains of the flu and they mutate and genetically code themselves overs so they are more resistant. So no thank you I will not take a flu shot when there is NO real statistical chance that the "20 strains" they picked are going to be the one of the billions strains of the flu that could be going around next year.

Sorry I'm not gonna do that and no I'm not a granola person. I just think that if you want to not catch the flu, eat properly, stay hydrated, get plenty of rest, stay away from sick people, wash your hands and don't touch your face. If you are sick with the sniffles, a cough or cold or anything else for GOODNESS sakes for everyone else STAY HOME!

http://vran.org/in-the-news/can-we-trust-them/



This is an article that shows possible corruptions between the CDC, FDA, the 1% elite. Seems as though anything that has to do with the 1% is not to be trusted unless proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, that goes for any kind of vaccines. It's an excellent web site for all kinds of vaccine information.