Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Flu Season, Again

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Flu Season, Again

    I just got off the phone with my naturopaths office and asked about whether they give flu shots. The receptionist was adamant about the dr.s views NOT to get one but couldn't explain why, so I came to the boards to read old threads and get your opinions (I know many of the members here work in medical settings.) Then I read this:

    When I was younger, my doctors always told me not to get the flu vaccine, it was only for older people, and kids or people with a condition (such as asthma) where the flu becomes that much more dangerous. I was told this all growing up and when my kids were younger. It was only recently i started seeing the "flu shot ever year recommendations" everywhere that seem to say that everybody should get it.


    This is exactly what I've always been told and I've always gotten the shot because I have asthma. But I have a question I can't shake, so here it is...

    If the flu vaccine is beneficial for only certain groups of people, I am assuming it is because they want these folks to *avoid* the flu altogether or it could cause serious complications. So, if it CAN prevent the flu for them, then why wouldn't everyone want to do it if they can avoid flu, too? I'm just not seeing the sense of only some people getting it. Either it works or it doesn't and if it does, why doesn't everyone who wants to avoid sickness get it? What's so special about giving it to immune compromised folks, does it only work for them and not the rest of us?

    Like I said, I have asthma. I'd like to get the shot but only if it really works, otherwise what's the point?
    Last edited by Goldstar; 10-28-2011, 11:43 AM.

  • #2
    Effectiveness in Flu Shots Lacking

    Here's some info to start with. Also, below is a link to the package insert from the flu vaccine. I was especially put off by the statements that it has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, has not been evaluated for effectiveness (!) and has not been evaluated for safety in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children. Again, this is from the manufacturer's package insert, not some kook's website or fringe blog.

    http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_flulaval.pdf

    Comment


    • #3
      I never get the flu shot.

      Until I got my Vitamin D level up above 80 ng/ml, I had asthma all my life. Now it's gone!

      D is cheap & testing is easy.
      Ancestral Nutrition Coaching
      Pregnancy Nutrition Coaching
      Primal Pregnancy Nutrition Article

      Comment


      • #4
        I have asthma and got the flu shot. Yes, I up my D but with my asthma I find I am so susceptible that I would rather not risk one of the strands it covers. CW? Maybe but until you have been where I have you can not understand.
        Karin


        Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

        What am I doing? Depends on the day.

        Comment


        • #5
          This is solely my experience, but the one year I had a flu shot, several months later I got the worst case of the flu I'd ever had. I haven't bothered since. The vaccines typically prevent only certain strains of the flu, so it's a crap shoot. I'd also rather not have a virus injected into my arm, for me the risks outweigh the benefits. That doesn't mean it's what's right for you, however.
          My Primal Journal with lots of food pr0n

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by athomeontherange View Post
            I have asthma and got the flu shot. Yes, I up my D but with my asthma I find I am so susceptible that I would rather not risk one of the strands it covers. CW? Maybe but until you have been where I have you can not understand.
            I agree. I have a seizure disorder and the fever of a flu could easily bring one on. Even if the protection is less than perfect, it's better than nothing. I also take care of my 86 year old Dad. If I got a flu and brought it home to him and he ended up with pneumonia, I would never forgive myself.

            It's all well and good to think that natural immunity can be boosted through vitamins and a good diet. Terrific. But being Primal doesn't make our immune systems infallible. Any extra help we can get is a good thing.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Paleobird View Post
              I agree. I have a seizure disorder and the fever of a flu could easily bring one on. Even if the protection is less than perfect, it's better than nothing. I also take care of my 86 year old Dad. If I got a flu and brought it home to him and he ended up with pneumonia, I would never forgive myself.

              It's all well and good to think that natural immunity can be boosted through vitamins and a good diet. Terrific. But being Primal doesn't make our immune systems infallible. Any extra help we can get is a good thing.
              Not attacking, just questioning: I understand wanting the "extra protection." However, if it's a less than 60% chance that the vax will actually help, and given the presence of mercury, thimerosal and aluminum (carcinogens), I'm curious about the tradeoff. As I mentioned above, the package insert itself states that the vax has not been evaluated for effectiveness nor for its potential as a carcinogen. This is something a person puts into their body on a yearly basis; thus the mercury, etc., will build up, as they are not eliminated from the body (as I understand it).

              Again, I am not attacking--just as I expect the right to refuse the vax, certainly others have the right to have the vax. I guess I'm just surprised to find that stance here and would like to understand better. Thanks for your time, if anyone cares to explain further.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've been debating a flu shot this year. I've never had one and I can't remember the last time I had the flu or even a bad cold (knock wood). I'm in my 2d trimester and they recommend it for pregnant women, BUT I work from home and am good about washing my hands and not putting my fingers in my mouth. Decisions, decisions...
                Heather and the hounds - Make a Fast Friend, Adopt a Greyhound!

                Comment


                • #9
                  I heard from a reliable source that the flu shot was only effective for 1.5% out of the people tested. :P I havent gotten a flu shot in years. I hate shots :C

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The only person who gets a flu shot in our house is the one who would be at high risk of death if they caught it. Benefits > risks.
                    Became Primal August 2011

                    SW - 84kg / 185lb
                    CW - 60kg / 132lb
                    GW - 60kg / 132lb

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Athanasey View Post
                      The only person who gets a flu shot in our house is the one who would be at high risk of death if they caught it. Benefits > risks.
                      +1
                      Karin


                      Created by MyFitnessPal.com - Free Calorie Counter

                      What am I doing? Depends on the day.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by honeypig View Post
                        Not attacking, just questioning: I understand wanting the "extra protection." However, if it's a less than 60% chance that the vax will actually help, and given the presence of mercury, thimerosal and aluminum (carcinogens), I'm curious about the tradeoff. As I mentioned above, the package insert itself states that the vax has not been evaluated for effectiveness nor for its potential as a carcinogen. This is something a person puts into their body on a yearly basis; thus the mercury, etc., will build up, as they are not eliminated from the body (as I understand it).

                        Again, I am not attacking--just as I expect the right to refuse the vax, certainly others have the right to have the vax. I guess I'm just surprised to find that stance here and would like to understand better. Thanks for your time, if anyone cares to explain further.
                        The reason it "hasn't been evaluated" is because that would be an impossibly long process. They make up the vax in a new formulation every year for the most prevalent strains around and get it to the people before flu season. There's no time to do controlled studies.

                        Show me actual numbers about how much of any given carcinogenic substance is involved and then we can have a talk about it. Otherwise this is just internet rumor mongering.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Its true that the flu shot was originally intended for those who really need to avoid the flu (young, old, immunocompromised) primarily because of limited supplies and healthy people are at far lower risk of dying from flu anyway.

                          Only recently have they been saying anyone can get them. In my estimation, its been ramping up for the last 5 years or so. My theory is that this is because the drug manufacturers are able to produce a lot more than they used to so of course theyre pushing for more people to take them because more sales = $$$$.
                          "Since going primal, I've found that there are very few problems that cannot be solved with butter and/or bacon fat."

                          My amusing take on paleo-blogging: http://whatshouldwecallpaleolife.tumblr.com/

                          Are you a Primal in San Francisco, or the SF Bay Area in general? Join our facebook group!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            From what I can gather, they started giving it to EVERYBODY because the immunocompromised cannot adequately respond to the shot. That means that, instead of trying to activate the response in those who are susceptible, they are trying to shrink the window of active transmission in those who may spread it to the vulnerable. You don't get the flu shot for yourself, you get it so you don't kill grandpa by leaving a tissue on the table.

                            Not that I'll ever take a flu shot again. I just wear the mask as policy dictates.
                            Crohn's, doing SCD

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by honeypig View Post
                              Effectiveness in Flu Shots Lacking

                              Here's some info to start with. Also, below is a link to the package insert from the flu vaccine. I was especially put off by the statements that it has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, has not been evaluated for effectiveness (!) and has not been evaluated for safety in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children. Again, this is from the manufacturer's package insert, not some kook's website or fringe blog.

                              http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_flulaval.pdf
                              Read that link. It "prevented infection in 69% of adults under 65". Please keep in mind that they didn't account for various factors such as different immune systems and whatnot.

                              Conclusion: The H1N1 virus has an infection rate of 31% in healthy adults. The vaccine does absolutely nothing.
                              In all of the universe there is only one person with your exact charateristics. Just like there is only one person with everybody else's characteristics. Effectively, your uniqueness makes you pretty average.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X