Flu shots page 7

[bloodorchid]

because i am the oracle of mda, i speak truths vast and devastating

[Dave_o]

Dave-

If you have gotten vaccinated and had your family vaccinated, then you should not be afraid of those of us who may contract the flu.

I decided not to get the vaccination because I was warned by a doctor that unless one can get the expensive single shot dose (not normally available), there is a risk to being injected with the mercury preservatives used in the multi-use supply And the vaccination is only 60% effective according to the CDC. I'm 67 years old and have gotten these shots in the past b/c I worked in a hospital. Now I don't have to. May I further suggest that you post in a civilized manner without name calling and insults? Yelling doesn't make your arguments more effective.

With respect, Janie.

The mercury your doctor refers to is ethylmercury, not elemental mercury, different animal. Its simply a preservative that your body can easily filter out. I might add, this compound in not present in childhood vaccines.
This is just another fallacy whipped up by the anti vac brigade.

My grudge is not with mature adults making decisions for themselves, it's with ignorant adults making uninformed decisions based on hysterical pseudoscience on behalf of helpless infants.

And there was no name calling, I was making an obvious observation.

[Ayla2010]

I am making the safest decision for my children.
You can't undo the needle once its gone in. You don't know if your child will get a severe reaction or none. I am not willing to risk damaging my child. I will deal with an illness IF it comes up. In the mean time I will keep my children as healthy as I can, by avoiding as many chemicals, processed foods, and other nasties as much as possible.
I know plenty of people who have vaccinated children who have gotten some illness they are vaccinated against, and their parents have taken them out anyway, because they think they are "safe". How is that fair?
I know myself, and plenty of other friends who don't vaccinate, keep their children home, even with a MINOR cold. This is being responsible and fair to everyone else.

[Ayla2010]

I don't even know why these debates need to happen.
People who don't get shots, do it because they are protecting themselves/their children.
People who do get shots think they are protecting themselves. I respect that. Why can't people respect we don't do it?

[bloodorchid]

apparently vaccination is right up there with religion and politics

[OutdoorAmy]

Totally respect the choice to get the shot, esp. by those who live with an immune impaired person, work in health care or are the parent of a young child (there is some correlational evidence/relationship that early exposure to the flu may be a contributing factor in schizophrenia after all) . . .

That said - I've never had the flu shot and I never plan to (unless my circumstances change). I've never had the seasonal flu, so I don't see a reason to take the risks (I'll be it the small risks) of the vaccine for a disease I'm already at very low risk for based on personal history. (Even in the adrenal fatigued, high cortisol terrible sleep and terrible diet year my junior year of college I didn't get the flu! . . . )

It's a personal choice, won't blame you either way - you do what's best for you and your circumstances based on your research and the opinion of your trusted physician - not the sheeple of the internets (for or against).

[Dave_o]

apparently vaccination is right up there with religion and politics

Unlike vaccination however, the world would be far, far better off without religion and politics.

[usrbin]

Vaccination has virtually eradicated a laundry list of ghastly infections, spared us unimaginable suffering and saved countless lives.
Please direct me to the literature that guided your decision.

Seriously. I'm fascinated as to what drives this mindset in the face of all logic, research, empirical evidence and common sense.

Let me clear something up here.

The 60% effective rate for vaccines does not mean what most people think it means.

It *does not* mean you have a 60% less chance of getting the flu.

Sample scenario

100 people in each group.

Control group (no vaccine) - 2 get flu, 98 do not get flu
Treatment group (flu vaccine) - 1 get flu, 99 do not get flu

What this means:

1 person in each group will catch the flu regardless if they got the vaccine or not
98 people in each group will not catch the flu regardless if they got the vaccine or not

Which leads to ==> 99 people in both groups were not helped by the vaccine.

The relative risk reduction (RRR) becomes (2-1)/2 = 50%.

Note that the 50% rate in this example does not mean you have a 50% less chance of getting the flu by taking the flu shot.

Measuring Effectiveness

A better measurement of the effectiveness of an intervention is using Number needed to treat (NNT). Mark actually touched on it here.

Basically, the lower the NNT, the more effective the intervention.

In my view, anything with NNT > 20 is dubious in effectiveness, NNT > 30 becomes extremely dubious, NNT > 50 is pure fantasy.

For medical interventions, there is an inverse relationship between effectiveness and hope. Whatever medical intervention you decided on, make sure it is closer to effective than hope.

According to this Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis Vaccines for preventing influenza... [Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010] - PubMed - NCBI:

For vaccines well matched against the flu in the environment, the NNT is 33 (33 people need to be treated to prevent 1 case of flu)

For vaccines with poor matches against the flu in the environment, the NNT is 99 (99 people need to be treated to prevent 1 case of flu)

Evidence vs Ideology

In case anyone is under the impression everything in vaccine research is evidence based, here is an article from The Atlantic that will warm your heart. Does the Vaccine Matter? - Shannon Brownlee, and Jeanne Lenzer - The Atlantic. Researchers that present evidence counter to the pro-vaccine narrative get blacklisted and defunded. This is a lot like how researchers get blacklisted and defunded because they went against government backed narratives such as the "Dietary Guidelines" for their country.

For the record, I am neither pro-vaccine or anti-vaccine. I am pro-effectve intervention.

So Dave_o, I have to ask. Can you direct me to the literature which formulated your mindset?

[Derpamix]

With respect, Janie.

The mercury your doctor refers to is ethylmercury, not elemental mercury, different animal. Its simply a preservative that your body can easily filter out. I might add, this compound in not present in childhood vaccines.
This is just another fallacy whipped up by the anti vac brigade.

My grudge is not with mature adults making decisions for themselves, it's with ignorant adults making uninformed decisions based on hysterical pseudoscience on behalf of helpless infants.

And there was no name calling, I was making an obvious observation.

No, the "ease" in which your body "filters" out ethylmercury is directly proportional to both the level of protective biocompounds like glutathione, and the ability to physiologically clear the toxins from your system.

In infants, and elderly, whose glutathione and physiology are weak, it's much more dangerous.

The fact that, these vaccines contain aluminum cation plus significant levels of formaldehyde(also toxins, which require healthy functioning liver and kidneys to filter out) is completely ignored by those issuing vaccinations in the first place.

Infants have immature functioning liver and kidneys.


I could go on for hours about the vast deleterious effects of all preservatives inside vaccines(like MSG), but you're just repeating exactly what's written on CDC(except you're still wrong)


Here is another new preservative added to vaccines:

Delayed effects of neonatal exposure to Tw... [Food Chem Toxicol. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

[StephenHLi]

There is a lot we do not fully understand about our immune system and how it responds to foreign invaders.

There is a lot we do not fully understand about how vaccines work.

Of what we do understand, we only THINK we know.


When a person normally and naturally encounters any virus or bacteria there is a normal pattern or pathology that follows.

Vaccines, despite deadened or weakened, bypasses that normal pathology. Vaccines contain a soup of chemicals we have no real idea what it can cause to each and every individual being. (Vaccines are not subject to gold standard: double blinded, rct placebo controlled science experiments, due to moral, unethical reasoning and time frame).

1.) Vaccines are not properly tested for efficacy.

2.) Vaccine are not properly tested for safety.

3.) It is illogical to bypass normal immune system responses in order to trick your system to hopefully fight and work correctly in the future in case of normal full blown exposure.



In order to develop true full immunity, you HAVE to get sick....you SHOULD get sick.

When you get sick, you rest, you try to take more care, you properly deal with the symptoms etc.

You win.

Your reward is natural immunity.