The CDC estimates annually approx. 3,000 to 49,000 people die from the flu or flu related complications.
This large gap/range should already trigger alarm bells. Why such a large range? Why choose the phrasing such as "flu related" or "complications".
My estimate is that not a lot of people die from the flu per year and they needed to include a larger scope of symptoms tied to the flu to make their case to promote and vaccinate everyone over the age of 6 months.
After one reads up on the information and the available scientific data...these are the flu vaccine facts:
1.) Flu vaccines may be only 60-70% effective at best. Exactly what does this mean..."effective"? Effective at preventing the flu? Effective at reducing flu symptoms? Effective at generating antibodies? Yea, I think that's what they mean...the shot is probably only 60-70% effective at producing antibodies to those deadened/inactive strains of proteins.
2.) Flu vaccines are most likely effective in the young adult to middle aged healthy adult populations. These groups of people most likely already have a stronger baseline immune system at default.
3.) Flu vaccines are not very effective at preventing the flu in the elderly. This is why they have a high dose version or their "extra strength" shot for the elderly. The elderly probably have a lowered baseline immune system (over worked/depleted) at default.
4.) Flu vaccines are not very effective at preventing the flu in the very young children. This is most likely due to the fact that these young babies have yet started to fully develop a fully functional immune system.
Flu Shots May Not Protect the Elderly or the Very Young: Scientific American
Below is a good article summarizing the Cochrane Collaboration reviewing a lot of available date with past clinical trials and research studies involving flu vaccines.
Now this systematic review of many studies (50 study reports, including 40 clinical trials, some (15) funded by pharmaceutical industry themselves!).....the Conchrane Collaboration found:
"Vaccines administered parenterally, that is, outside the digestive tract—which generally means by injection—reduced influenza-like symptoms by only 12%.*
They found no evidence that vaccination prevents viral transmission in healthy adults! (There goes the whole herd immunity argument!) This is particularly significant because, as they noted, inactivated vaccines are known to perform best in healthy adults.
They also found no evidence that flu vaccines prevent complications, either. They attempted to ascertain the degree of complications, and though they did report on some, most of the studies simply did not address the issue or did so inadequately."
No Value in Any Influenza Vaccine: Cochrane Collaboration Study | Gaia HealthGaia Health
OK so, what I want to know is this.....
1.) Vaccines are supposedly used in the name of prevention right? That's why they encourage mothers to inject their children with nearly 40 shots before the age of 6? So if the flu vaccines are not that great at preventing the flu, why are we getting them? Why are we handing them out like candy to the elderly population, the children, the pregnant hopeful moms?
2.) Pro vaccination supporters like to move the goal posts so they then decide that flu vaccines are not really used to prevent the flu, they are used to boost the immune system to help you fight the symptoms off so people can prevent further complications? Well the flu vaccines do not do a very good job at reducing symptoms (12% reduction). I am sorry, where is the logic in this? As long as I have ever known or learned from school how the immune system works....how do we boost our immune system by receiving toxic chemicals? How are we boosting the immune system by receiving foreign DNA and other particles? How are we boosting the immune system by training the system to fight against a dead or weakened invader? Is our immune system really going to work that well against the real stronger active and fully alive virus strain? Hmmm...I dunno, but I seriously doubt it.
3.) If the flu vaccine does not help prevent transmission in healthy adults, then why should people who have never gotten the flu still need to get the shot....it's not going to help others who cannot get the shot for whatever reason. The big takeaway here is that the flu shot doesn't provide a ton of protection or prevention to the people who receive the shot, how in the name of mother nature will the shot protect and prevent people who didn't receive the shot? There is no logic here again.
4.) I understand that further complications can certainly occur after a person contracts the flu....but it is within that person's power or that person's care taker's power to take responsibility to appropriately deal with the flu and the symptoms that arise. If one does not then the chances for complications are going to increase because the immune system is already being worked to fight off the flu virus. Any other virus or bacteria can sneak its way in and cause havoc. If a person is feeling sick, stay at home, rest,....it's a message to take it easy!
Last edited by StephenHLi; 01-23-2013 at 09:21 PM.
Again, we do not know fully how each person from any age group will react to any form of medically injectable intervention.
Maybe for pregnant women who are given vaccines their babies develop eczema, food allergies and asthma.
Maybe children who receive too many vaccines have under developed immune systems and are constantly sick, catching colds frequently and having runny noses all the time.
Maybe teens receiving swine flu vaccines develop narcolepsy.
Maybe the elderly receiving vaccines develop Alzheimer's.
I wish the governments and these companies would do proper long term studies to figure our some of these issues. The current studies performed are "bare minimum" to just get these vaccines to market. FDA "fast tracks" most of these new vaccines which is really scary since there are hundreds and hundreds of new vaccines in development.
In the near future, USA kids will probably be receiving 100-200 shots before their able to purchase alcohol legally.
There was another article I read recently that this whole "vaccinate everyone" idea is uniquely limited to the US and Canada. Europe doesn't do it and they think it's a bad idea because they said it actually discourages vaccine makers from finding a more effective flu vaccine. That was also in the mainstream media- either Yahoo News or CNN.
High Weight: 225
Weight at start of Primal: 189
Current Weight: 174
Goal Weight: 130
Primal Start Date: 11/26/2012
F 5 ft 3. HW: 196 lbs. Primal SW (May 2011): 182 lbs (42% BF)... W June '12: 160 lbs (29% BF) (UK size 12, US size 8). GW: ~24% BF - have ditched the scales til I fit into a pair of UK size 10 bootcut jeans. Currently aligning towards 'The Perfect Health Diet' having swapped some fat for potatoes.
I never get a flu shot and considering that the cold I had, since going primal, lasted four days and was gone, don't plan on it. Flu is running rampant in our office, thought I was coming down with it, but it turns out it was just sinuses. Even my sinuses have been better since going primal...so no plans on getting a shot of any kind.
When we talk about contaminants in the flu shot, are we talking about significant amounts? I mean there are contaminants everywhere in modern life, even in things like vegetables.
I'm also not sure how a vaccine would make your immune system weaker. Anyone care to explain that one?
If a person were to encounter these foreign substances, at the very least have these chemicals follow a normal path through some of our naturally designed defense, filtration systems. Combining these negatives with virtually a very small amount of benefit is seriously a questionable action in the name of death/disease prevention.
If said vaccine contains a lot of offensive, poisonous substances how does that not damage any number of bodily systems...let alone the immune system?
The theory behind the flu shot is to help our immune system train to fight the foreign virus...specifically for the next encounter. My question is if that really works. Does injecting the body with a deadened or inactive virus generate any kind of prosperous practice or training? Are the antibodies that are developed the same antibodies fit to help our fight against a live, fully active virus strain?