Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

originally posted by: Frocharocha

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: luthier

I have actually read his article on BMJ, and I was not impressed. I am absolutely pro-vaccine as I have read tons of research that shows their benefits (see my second link). In the UK vaccines are not compulsory but as I work in healthcare I have always had all my vaccinations, mostly to protect patients with a weak immune system or long term conditions that may risk their lives if they get the flu.

The flu vaccine does work with a 90% + effectiveness. But it's effectiveness varies year to year, depending on the virus and it can usually protect against three strains per season (www.cdc.gov...).

Like with everything else I am pro-choice and I think the UK is doing the right thing by not making vaccination compulsory, even though I disagree with those against it. Vaccines have been saving lives and money for decades.

I will make these my words. There are too many researches that show that vaccines are harmless. In fact, i took vaccines my whole life and never experienced serious issues with the exception of my body accepting the vaccine on the first days, which kinda hurted.

That's nice. But my argument is not that vaccines kill people. Its that the flu shot isn't effective and the gov pays huge money for it. There is a considerable amount of evidence it isn't worth the cost (to the gov through your taxes).

Not to mention this particular shot is actually much more dangerous than any other. It has the most payouts by the vaccine court in the us.

a reply to: Aliensun

No, that's not what it's for.

The flu shot is and always will be a crap shoot just because of how the flu works. They always make a guess as to what they think the most common strains of flu will be for the shot, and between the time they pick and produce the vaccine, the strains can mutate or another strain could wind up being the big one out circulating.

And then, even if the vaccine is effective, it can vary in its percentage effectiveness. Last year, one strain was only about 50% effective meaning it was a crap shoot whether the strain you were exposed to in the shot would protect you against real world exposure or not.

For these reasons, we generally don't feel the annual flu shot is worthwhile since it's really a gamble as to whether or not it's actually going to do much for you. We avoid it unless the people are dying or the flu is very, very virulent. Even then, if we can, we just try to stay home.

a reply to: Agartha

In all of my 60 Years on this Planet.
I have Had The Flu Vaccine 3 Times.
Guess What ?
I Contracted the FLU all 3 Times.
Those 3 Times Are The Only Time In
60 Years That I Have Had The FLU.

Gotta be Something Related in My Opinion.

a reply to: ketsuko

I think people are finally waking up to this fact. The flu shot is more about money and profit than it is about anything else.

As you said the whole thing is a crap shoot and the odds are not in our favor.

I forgot to add - Coming soon to you!!! The vaccine of the Year!

You are a horrible grandparent and risk killing your grandchildren if you don't take the Whooping Cough Vaccine.

You are bound to die an early death if you don't take the Pneumonia vaccine.

You are bound to suffer the pains of hell if you don't take the Shingles vaccine.

The list will keep on growing as big pharma keeps raking in their blood money and we keep ignoring the truth.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Well, there will be times when I would get it as I have asthma, but those years are very rare. I only do when I feel I need to hedge my bets for some reason. Most years, I feel my own immune system is up to the task.

One FLU season, my Dr confided in me the following....

"Wow, I hope I sell all these vaccine shots...I had to buy them upfront!"

So, in otherwords, like any store...they have to buy the goods with faith that they will in turn sell them to recoup their expense on the product. Like, grocery stores. Department Stores. Etc.

My Dr. was actually quite concerned that he was going to take a bath on the vaccines that he had purchased.

So they're discovering that intravenous mercury (Thimerosal) is a bad idea? Shocker.

I am no doctor, but I like to think of myself as logical, and Herd Immunity is the basis for vaccinations. It's not a "me" idea but an "us" idea. This doesn't necessarily detract your argument, but there is a scientific basis outside of the money machine.

Influenza is about as contractible as the common cold, which makes it particularly alarming to a medical scientist. Today, the flu kills people with weakened immune systems for the most part, so there is an interest in keeping these people from initially contracting the virus.

The Spanish influenza was an incredibly destructive disease, however, unlike the flu we know today, it killed mainly healthy people due to an overreaction of the immune system. Prevailing medical knowledge says that slight exposures to the influenza virus is beneficial in the long term, therefore, vaccination and its risks are outweighed by the potential for a large portion of the modern healthy population facing the same situation as the 1918-1919 population who had little to no exposure to the virus.

ETA: That doesn't do much to prove or disprove the idea that vaccinations are required today. It seems that keeping a population exposed to a certain virus is beneficial in the long run, so it is better to vaccinate all people, including the healthy, when it comes to this particular virus.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

Yes, but the Spanish Flu killed because it was a completely novel strain, not one people had ever been exposed to.

You can expose people to the traditional strains all you want, but if one of the avian flus mutates and becomes virulent, it won't help us to have been exposed to traditional swine strains for all those years. Our immune systems will still react like they've never seen the bug before.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao
Solid logic, but a couple things are overlooked.

The flu vaccine will not help prevent a modern Spanish flu, because the vaccine would not be available until after the virus had become widespread. Outbreaks like the Spanish flu happen when viruses evolve and become resitant to natural immune responses and vaccines.

In almost three decades I have never had a flu shot. I had the flu once, around age 3 or 4. Every job I have worked requires frequent human contact. That makes me skeptical to the value of flu vaccines.

a reply to: ketsuko

I realize this, but it was as different from the 1917 form as the 1918 form, that is, a measurable difference, but still contractible. It is very difficult to predict how a virus will mutate, and the best prevention is an immunity to a similar strain, which, as medical logic dictates, is the strain that was previously virulent.

ETA: There is no agreement on the origins of the Spanish flu, which is simply a name for the pandemic. It could have been birds, or pigs, or humans. Regardless, it is hard to argue that no vaccination against it is as effective against it is as effective as one.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

I'd agree with you if it wasn't for the fact that the Spanish flu caused an overreaction of the immune system. I personally do not get vaccinated but that has to do with the same facts that I share with you. I probably have had the flu every year, but I consider it a cold. If I had not contracted it, I may have ended up in ICU. My exposure is good enough for immunity. A sizable portion of the population may not be exposed as readily as we are, so, they require a bit of exposure to prevent passing the virus to those who cannot cope (the very young and the very old.)

Aside from people who suffer from immune disorders, the best way to treat overreactions of the immune system is exposure - as far as I can tell.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Thanks for the info. I have to get my flu shot this week. My job as a nurse mandates it unless it is against my religion. Even if you are allergic, they have different preparations for that.

Ridic...

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: ketsuko

I realize this, but it was as different from the 1917 form as the 1918 form, that is, a measurable difference, but still contractible. It is very difficult to predict how a virus will mutate, and the best prevention is an immunity to a similar strain, which, as medical logic dictates, is the strain that was previously virulent.

ETA: There is no agreement on the origins of the Spanish flu, which is simply a name for the pandemic. It could have been birds, or pigs, or humans. Regardless, it is hard to argue that no vaccination against it is as effective against it is as effective as one.

Their is a very big difference with todays flu. It changes constantly and regionally throughout one season. Enough that last year the cdc says the flu shot was 18-23 percent effective. It will never be snuffed out like polio meaning a new vaccine every year which is great if your a vaccine manufacturer. Do we know the vaccine doesnt help speed up the mutation?

As far as being effective well if your any good at math and percentages its not great even over a 10 year period. Though the manufactures still make money

originally posted by: OrdoAdChao
a reply to: ketsuko

I realize this, but it was as different from the 1917 form as the 1918 form, that is, a measurable difference, but still contractible. It is very difficult to predict how a virus will mutate, and the best prevention is an immunity to a similar strain, which, as medical logic dictates, is the strain that was previously virulent.

ETA: There is no agreement on the origins of the Spanish flu, which is simply a name for the pandemic. It could have been birds, or pigs, or humans. Regardless, it is hard to argue that no vaccination against it is as effective against it is as effective as one.

www.cdc.gov...

The flu vaccine is not the only way to obtain immunity. In fact it is a weak option as it is passive. Exposure to the actual virus, provides you with an active immunity which can be life-long. Of course it is a bit tricky with viruses like the flu because they do have the potential to mutate, but as it was said before, a vaccine can only be made from a past virus. Therefore, anyone exposed to the same virus has a good chance of already having an active immunity.

I say we are better off kissing everyone we know that has the flu. It may be a cheaper, safer way to obtain exposure and a longer lasting active immunity.

a reply to: luthier

I understand your point, but I don't think that viruses mutate toward an inevitable epidemic strain. There is no direction for them, and vaccinations do not work like antibiotics, in that they prevent the virus from taking hold, they do not effect the virus directly. They mutate as a course of infection, that is each strain differs because the virus slightly changes for every host and host population that it infects, not as a course for survival, like a bacteria might.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I completely agree, so let's just share that beer!


Vaccination is just a modern option when it comes to a virus that has proven to cause an immune system overreaction, not everyone is so fortunate to share our sensibilities.

a reply to: OrdoAdChao

No but they know from the reactions that people who died from it were suffering from cytokine storms brought on by immune system over-reaction which tends to happen when the immune system encounters a bug it's not familiar with. So no matter what the origin of the strain, it was one the immune system had not previously encountered. This is why it killed the young and healthy more than the very young and very old whose immune systems are weaker and therefore less able/likely to kill them. Those populations suffered the usual deaths from the strong flu infection and its associated secondaries.

The storm is brought on by specific cytokines, and the information is readily available online in what to consume to modulate them. I don't fear the cytokines storm, only ignorance.

a reply to: ketsuko

Which helps my argument that having previous exposure, whether it be in the form of contraction or vaccination, helps prevent the cytokine storms. If the Spanish flu came from an era where vaccination was uncommon, doesn't logic dictate that the cytokine storms in healthy people were caused by a lack of exposure? And, due to the fact that since 1917-1918 there has been little instance of this result in the modernized world, can not that same logic apply? That is, with a particularly infectious (EDIT OUT "virulent") strain, there is a large portion of the population which contracted the virus without the cytokine storm reaction, and roughly the same portion which died without the reaction. The only difference is that the normally healthy had a bad reaction to the virus - which probably was not caused by the virus itself, but the immune system of the individual.