Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: SlapMonkey


Dont kow if anbody posted this

Non-epidemiologist tries to do epidemiology, feeds anti-vaccine activists

From the link

Dr. Doshi, who is not an epidemiologist, makes some clear mistakes about the nature of the yearly flu epidemics that we see, the deaths from influenza, and the benefits/risks of the influenza vaccine.

Looks like as usual on conspiracy sites he is NOT an expert of what he is talking about

We have been discussing this. Doshi does have credentials, the article just misrepresented the whole affair.

Peter Doshi is an assistant professor of pharmaceutical health services research in the School of Pharmacy and associate editor at The BMJ (formerly, British Medical Journal). His research focuses on policies related to drug safety and effectiveness evaluation in the context of regulation, evidence-based medicine, and debates over access to data.

originally posted by: Prezbo369
I take it you're ignoring all those making comments such as 'I aint never had a vaccination and never had the flu'.......or do you think they actually qualify as evidence?....

Well, I made a similar claim in the OP--the funny thing about medical care is that the individual should absolutely look at what works for them in the present and what has worked for them in the past. Comments like what you cite absolutely are evidence--evidence of what works for the individual.

What are you advocating, that we ignore our personal experiences with our own bodies and just bow down to the doctors and governments who tell us that we need something, even if our experience and bodies dictate otherwise?

You the author of this thread have presented an anecdotal report from someone you had no prior knowledge of with a click-bait title obviously intended for the anti-vac folk so they can wallow in their irrational stance on vaccinations. You then claim 'I only made this thread for added information to the big picture of the vaccination debate.'......which is just ridiculous, dishonest and vile in this posters opinion. Is that enough?

Ha...you are absolutely entitled to your opinion (which appears misguided), but you have proven nothing about your comment about natural selection or the ignorance of people who hold a different stance than you do.

I didn't misrepresent anything in my OP--in fact, I made it abundantly clear that the title is alarmist in wording, that I don't necessarily espouse the claims made in the link and by the scientist, nor that I promote them as being absolute fact. But, regardless as to your own opinions on the matter, whenever a scientist with a presumed relevancy makes claims that I have seen evidence for in other places, I tend to at least acknowledge its existence and share it so that other people can review the content and make a decision for themselves.

You have obviously made yours, and that's fine, but don't belittle others who may use the information presented and come to a different conclusion.

People who respond as you do, with little to no substance, only detract from your stance on the subject matter, and you certainly don't win anyone over to your 'side' of the argument with the schoolyard tactic of name calling and belittling.

Best regards, as I don't plan to waste anymore time on discussions that derail the original conversation.

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Dont kow if anbody posted this

Non-epidemiologist tries to do epidemiology, feeds anti-vaccine activists

From the link

Dr. Doshi, who is not an epidemiologist, makes some clear mistakes about the nature of the yearly flu epidemics that we see, the deaths from influenza, and the benefits/risks of the influenza vaccine.

Looks like as usual on conspiracy sites he is NOT an expert of what he is talking about

I'm uncertain if anyone posted it. I'm not convinced of anything said by that blogger, as I can't even seem to find his full name on the site, let alone be able to search for any information on him--I'm certainly not just going to take his word for it, just like we shouldn't just take Dr. Doshi's word for it.

It seems like the whole point of the blog is to reiterate a myriad of times that Dr. Doshi is not an epidemiologist, but in my experience, just because someone doesn't have a certain title or job description does not automatically invalidate points that they make and evidence that they bring with that point.

Again, I'm not saying I'm in love with Doshi's points or how the story is written or how there are no links to studies cited, but that doesn't mean that I just outright jettison any possible accuracy of his claims until I can take the time to follow up with some in-depth research into it--time that I haven't really had since authoring this thread.

Thanks for the link, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for me to just call Doshi and his claims irrelevant and false--not yet, anyway.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: wmd_2008
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Dont kow if anbody posted this

Non-epidemiologist tries to do epidemiology, feeds anti-vaccine activists

From the link

Dr. Doshi, who is not an epidemiologist, makes some clear mistakes about the nature of the yearly flu epidemics that we see, the deaths from influenza, and the benefits/risks of the influenza vaccine.

Looks like as usual on conspiracy sites he is NOT an expert of what he is talking about

I'm uncertain if anyone posted it. I'm not convinced of anything said by that blogger, as I can't even seem to find his full name on the site, let alone be able to search for any information on him--I'm certainly not just going to take his word for it, just like we shouldn't just take Dr. Doshi's word for it.

It seems like the whole point of the blog is to reiterate a myriad of times that Dr. Doshi is not an epidemiologist, but in my experience, just because someone doesn't have a certain title or job description does not automatically invalidate points that they make and evidence that they bring with that point.

Again, I'm not saying I'm in love with Doshi's points or how the story is written or how there are no links to studies cited, but that doesn't mean that I just outright jettison any possible accuracy of his claims until I can take the time to follow up with some in-depth research into it--time that I haven't really had since authoring this thread.

Thanks for the link, but it's not exactly a smoking gun for me to just call Doshi and his claims irrelevant and false--not yet, anyway.

His name is Peter Doshi. He has plenty of credentials to make the actual claims he does. Which is mostly a critique of the availability of data and the way it is misused in public opinion.

All I can say is, I got the flu shot years ago and I have never been so sick in my whole life.

And my dad got the flu shot and now he's dead.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

what exactly do you think a vaccine does? it's a controlled virus injection to get your immune system to produce antibodies against the strain of flu.
it's no different than if someone with the same flu sneezed in your face except injected.
though you can sometimes get the flu since it bypasses your mucus membranes, which are a first line of defense.

i honestly think anyone who makes this assertion needs to go relearn how the immune system, infection and viruses work. just spend a few minutes on webMD or wiki.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
(alarmist wording in the title is from the link, not me)

Whelp, it's that time of the year again when we're all going to be seeing the "flu shots available here" signs everywhere, and everyone telling you that you need to get the flu shot.

But, why? I ask many people, "Why do you always get the flu shot?" Most respond with the predictable answer that it will keep them from getting the flu--yet many of the same tend to get the flu quite regularly.

I've never gotten the flu shot under my own decision except for one time--when my wife deployed to Iraq and I couldn't afford to get sick since I was single-parenting it with our two-year-old son. Bad decision, as that was the ONLY time in my entire 36 years of life that I have ever contracted the flu. Of course, I can't say that this correlation equals causation, but maybe it's a relatively safe assumption.

Dr. Peter Doshi, a scientist at the well-known Johns Hopkins University, has been doing some research on the influenza vaccines and the effects that they have on patients, both positive and negative. The results may surprise a few here, but honestly, I'm not surprised at all.

source

A Johns Hopkins scientist has issued a blistering report on influenza vaccines in the British Medical Journal (BMJ). Peter Doshi, Ph.D., charges that although the vaccines are being pushed on the public in unprecedented numbers, they are less effective and cause more side effects than alleged by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Further, says Doshi, the studies that underlie the CDC’s policy of encouraging most people to get a yearly flu shot are often low quality studies that do not substantiate the official claims.

The story continues...

The main assertion of the CDC that fuels the push for flu vaccines each year is that influenza comes with a risk of serious complications which can cause death, especially in senior citizens and those suffering from chronic illnesses. That’s not the case, said Doshi.

When read carefully, the CDC acknowledges that studies finding any perceived reduction in death rates may be due to the “healthy-user effect” — the tendency for healthier people to be vaccinated more than less-healthy people. The only randomized trial of influenza vaccine in older people found no decrease in deaths. “This means that influenza vaccines are approved for use in older people despite any clinical trials demonstrating a reduction in serious outcomes,” says Doshi.

I'd be interested to see a healthy-user effect looked at for healthy people who don't receive the vaccine. But I digress...

For most people, says Dr. Blaylock, flu vaccines don’t prevent the flu but actually increase the odds of getting it. The mercury contained in vaccines is such a strong immune depressant that a flu shot suppresses immunity for several weeks. “This makes people highly susceptible to catching the flu,” he says. “They may even think the vaccine gave them the flu, but that’s not true — it depressed their immune system and then they caught the flu.”

...

Doshi asserts that influenza is a case of “disease mongering” in an effort to expand markets. He points to the fact that deaths from flu declined sharply during the middle of the 20th century, long before the huge vaccine campaigns that kicked off the 21st century.

Why do drug companies push the flu vaccine? “It’s all about money,” says Dr. Blaylock. “Vaccines are a pharmaceutical company’s dream. They have a product that both the government and the media will help them sell, and since vaccines are protected, they can’t be sued if anyone has a complication.”

source

I tend to agree that, while they may have started out with good intentions, vaccines against diseases and illnesses with have a low rate of death and debilitating side effects are nothing more than a money-making effort on the side of pharmaceutical companies. Yes, there are some necessary vaccines, like to polio and other such diseases, but MMR and Chicken Pox and influenza--those types of vaccinations do less good for the human body than they do for the bottom line of the companies producing them.

But that is my opinion--I simply share this article with you all because it's both timely and appears to have some good information contained within it. Plus, it's always good, in my opinion, to have access to evidence from all sides of a debate, especially when that evidence is provided by someone in whom we should be able to place our trust.

I make no claims as to the motives behind the source site nor Dr. Doshi--all I can do is hope that the motives are pure and in the best interest of the human body. But, read the entire article and look at the information, then decide for yourselves.

I'm considered a high-risk group when it comes to the flu (I have asthma), but I never get the shot and will never again, as long as I'm able to keep myself healthy for my age. I'm a firm believer that vaccinations should be optional and the decision should be made by the individual or the parent of a child (or caretaker of the elderly), but I also believe that without a good store of knowledge from all sides of an issue, making educated decisions is difficult, if not impossibly.

So, let the comments begin! I do not claim to be an expert on vaccinations by any stretch, so if you come at me with technical arguments, I may not respond because I try not to do so out of ignorance.

Not that there are ever ignorant claims on either side of the vaccine debate or anything...

Thanks for sharing this information. Like you, neither my wife or I have ever gotten the flu shot.

I would guess however that with the Federalization of the US Health Care system, the day is coming when getting the flu shot will no longer be optional. Perhaps that will be a good thing, after all, who are we to claim special exemption? And if we won't be allowed special exemption, no one should be granted any exemptions. Its just a matter of time, really.

originally posted by: demongoat
a reply to: SlapMonkey

what exactly do you think a vaccine does? it's a controlled disease injection to get your immune system to produce antibodies against the strain of flu.
it's no different than if someone with the same flu sneezed in your face except injected.
it's why you can sometimes get the flu since it bypasses your mucus membranes which are a first line of defense.

No its not the same.

a reply to: luthier

the only difference is you shouldn't get infected because the virus is dead.
the part that matters is still there, the virus capsid proteins that trigger the immune system.

so getting a vaccine is better than not getting it in fact because you don't risk your health.

originally posted by: demongoat
a reply to: luthier

the only difference is you shouldn't get infected because the virus is dead.
the part that matters is still there, the virus capsid proteins that trigger the immune system.

Not really. Adaptive immunity doesnt wear off. If you get the flu and make antibodies it will last much longer than your flu shot which wears off quickly.

a reply to: luthier

uh no, vaccines are active, passive immunity is when you inject blood from already immune people into someone who isn't immune.
no one really does that because we have vaccines.

how the immunity is triggered is irrelevant to how long the immunity lasts, or else we wouldn't even bother with vaccines. in fact immunity lasts depending on the exposure and for how long, not how it is delivered.

what is "adaptive immunity" anyway? our immune system works by tagging a virus and creating an antigen against it, no matter how the infection is delivered.

a reply to: TonyS

I would guess however that with the Federalization of the US Health Care system, the day is coming when getting the flu shot will no longer be optional. Perhaps that will be a good thing, after all, who are we to claim special exemption? And if we won't be allowed special exemption, no one should be granted any exemptions. Its just a matter of time, really.

And I am hoping that people will come to their senses and realize that being injected with a weaker strain of a virus that they, more than likely, have already been exposed to, and already have an stronger and active immunity to, is unnecessary.

The flu vaccine should be by choice and only needed by those that were not previously exposed to the past strains, which is what the vaccine is. It contains the viruses of the years past. There is no guarantee that it has any benefit what so ever against the virus that presents the years it is being given.

I personally, haven't had the flu for longer than I can remember. I attribute it to having worked over forty years with people with all types of respiratory illnesses, but my years working with medically fragile children, that were on vents, is what made me the sickest I had ever been in my life. I was exposed to bugs that the labs could not even identify. The upside, is that I believe it provided me with an awesome immune system, and active immunity, possibly for a life-time for bugs, I hope the general public never realize even exist.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I haven't taken the flu shot in many, many years and as of yet have not contracted the flu. I chose not to take it because of the mercury and some of the other ingredients in it and because I have witnessed the ineffectiveness of the shot. Many who get the shot each year still get the flu. I am not an anti-vax person, as I see the need for modern medicine and preventative care, but never hurts to research what is being put in you body or injected into your body and weighing the positives and negatives and then making a decision. After doing that, I can't in good conscience take the flu vaccination.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn

And I am hoping that people will come to their senses and realize that being injected with a weaker strain of a virus that they, more than likely, have already been exposed to, and already have an stronger and active immunity to, is unnecessary.

a vaccine is better, the virus is dead and only the needed particles that trigger the immune response are left. so no being infected naturally is worse for you, not better. the effects you get are your body reacting to the the dead virus proteins.

The flu vaccine should be by choice and only needed by those that were not previously exposed to the past strains, which is what the vaccine is. It contains the viruses of the years past. There is no guarantee that it has any benefit what so ever against the virus that presents the years it is being given.

no it contains the capsid proteins of the strains, they are dead viruses. also getting a vaccine is safer since they won't reproduce killing your cells.

I personally, haven't had the flu for longer than I can remember. I attribute it to having worked over forty years with people with all types of respiratory illnesses, but my years working with medically fragile children, that were on vents, is what made me the sickest I had ever been in my life. I was exposed to bugs that the labs could not even identify. The upside, is that I believe it provided me with an awesome immune system, and active immunity, possibly for a life-time for bugs, I hope the general public never realize even exist.

where you in a hospital with the children? hospitals are full of vectors of disease and illness, so you would get more sick. more attacks are more chances to get sick.
i don't think you know what "active immunity" means in this context, active means it's produced by you, passive means it was produced by someone else then put in you.

getting a vaccine results in the same effect as getting it in the wild, only it's safer since the virus won't reproduce.

a reply to: amberinsc

yet there is no evidence that the amount of mercury in vaccines is enough to do anyone harm, the amount that would start doing harm is over a gram.
i doubt there is a gram of mercury in a shot.
also most of what we see is our body reacting to the proteins in the vaccine not the virus, it's dead.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think most people at this point have to admit that this push for vaccines is all about big business and less about the well being of the people of this world. I have to fall back on the adage; Follow the money.

If they are so concerned about the well being of people on this planet they would be working on providing a healthier environment, including access to clean water and to safe, adequate nutrition. Dying of the flu would seem a blessing to some, when they are slowly being poisoned to death. Why would it be of interest to vaccinate a person that is dying of dehydration or starvation? Your contribution is an injection that "may" prevent them from getting the flu? If that is all you have to offer, why the hell would they care.

When we allowed others to have to right to force us through coercion, fear of lost of work, fear of lost of custody of our children, over something they cannot guarantee, nor have enough faith in themselves, to back the failure of their product, or damages caused by their product, with their dollars; we handed over the keys to our soul. We accepted one of the marks of the beast, and it will not stop there.

We are not what we say we are. We lie more often to ourselves then we do to anyone else. We are what we live, what we do, what we don't do, and what we fight for.

When we give up the fight, we give up.

Game over.

No. It's not about the money. Vaccines are about HERD IMMUNITY. It's as simple as that. If everyone that can take vaccines, took vaccines, there would be no issues.

But we have the anti-vax fake science nutbags that ruin it for everybody.

originally posted by: THEatsking

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think most people at this point have to admit that this push for vaccines is all about big business and less about the well being of the people of this world. I have to fall back on the adage; Follow the money.

If they are so concerned about the well being of people on this planet they would be working on providing a healthier environment, including access to clean water and to safe, adequate nutrition. Dying of the flu would seem a blessing to some, when they are slowly being poisoned to death. Why would it be of interest to vaccinate a person that is dying of dehydration or starvation? Your contribution is an injection that "may" prevent them from getting the flu? If that is all you have to offer, why the hell would they care.

When we allowed others to have to right to force us through coercion, fear of lost of work, fear of lost of custody of our children, over something they cannot guarantee, nor have enough faith in themselves, to back the failure of their product, or damages caused by their product, with their dollars; we handed over the keys to our soul. We accepted one of the marks of the beast, and it will not stop there.

We are not what we say we are. We lie more often to ourselves then we do to anyone else. We are what we live, what we do, what we don't do, and what we fight for.

When we give up the fight, we give up.

Game over.

No. It's not about the money. Vaccines are about HERD IMMUNITY. It's as simple as that. If everyone that can take vaccines, took vaccines, there would be no issues.

But we have the anti-vax fake science nutbags that ruin it for everybody.

Yeah like last year when it was 18 percent effective? That is true for most vaccines but not all. Especially the flu which mutates so quickly. Its not anti vax nutbags. We are a few years away from an effective flu vaccine. The drift and shift of flu happens fairly quickly in comparrison to other strains. Its also very dependent on regional virus strains.

Like i said all my kids have the essential vaccines. This one though isnt a sure thing and most people living in a population will naturally get the virus. Thpugh it has said the average adult gets the flu twice every 30 years.

But yes technically you are correct. I just dont see us vaccinating every bird, pig, and human in the world which is what we would need to do with this current version of the vaccine to stop it from mutating past the vaccine in a global community. Some research does show it still helps to get the vaccine.

a reply to: luthier

Doshi doesn't have the credentials or he would be participating in peer reviewed studies (see one of my previous post on this thread).

Anyway, I was coming to post this:

An influenza vaccine effectiveness done in Japan by the Nagasaki University, published in 2013.

The overall Vaccine Effectiveness estimate against medically attended influenza was 47.6%, after adjusting for the patients’ age groups, presence of chronic conditions, month of visit, and smoking and alcohol use. The seasonal influenza vaccine reduced the risk of medically attended influenza by 60.9% for patients less than 50 years of age, but a significant reduction was not observed for patients 50 years of age and older. A sensitivity analysis provided similar figures.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Then another study regarding vaccines effectiveness in children in the US, done by various organizations and published in 2014.

Compared to unvaccinated children, children who were fully vaccinated were 74% or 82% less likely to be admitted to a PICU for in fl uenza compared to PICU controls or community controls, respectively. (PICU: pediatric intensive care unit).
jid.oxfordjournals.org...

One more from New Zealand, 2014:

Estimated VE was 59% in patients aged 45-64 years but only 8% in those aged 65 years and above.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

I tried to look for the most 'neutral' articles. We can see here that the vaccine seems to be quite effective with those under 50/60 but it doesn't seem to be very effective with the elderly population. Children with the vaccine were up to 80% less likely to be admitted to intensive care; this, to me, shows effectiveness.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: THEatsking

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I think most people at this point have to admit that this push for vaccines is all about big business and less about the well being of the people of this world. I have to fall back on the adage; Follow the money.

If they are so concerned about the well being of people on this planet they would be working on providing a healthier environment, including access to clean water and to safe, adequate nutrition. Dying of the flu would seem a blessing to some, when they are slowly being poisoned to death. Why would it be of interest to vaccinate a person that is dying of dehydration or starvation? Your contribution is an injection that "may" prevent them from getting the flu? If that is all you have to offer, why the hell would they care.

When we allowed others to have to right to force us through coercion, fear of lost of work, fear of lost of custody of our children, over something they cannot guarantee, nor have enough faith in themselves, to back the failure of their product, or damages caused by their product, with their dollars; we handed over the keys to our soul. We accepted one of the marks of the beast, and it will not stop there.

We are not what we say we are. We lie more often to ourselves then we do to anyone else. We are what we live, what we do, what we don't do, and what we fight for.

When we give up the fight, we give up.

Game over.

No. It's not about the money. Vaccines are about HERD IMMUNITY. It's as simple as that. If everyone that can take vaccines, took vaccines, there would be no issues.

But we have the anti-vax fake science nutbags that ruin it for everybody.

Yeah like last year when it was 18 percent effective? That is true for most vaccines but not all. Especially the flu which mutates so quickly. Its not anti vax nutbags. We are a few years away from an effective flu vaccine. The drift and shift of flu happens fairly quickly in comparrison to other strains. Its also very dependent on regional virus strains.

Like i said all my kids have the essential vaccines. This one though isnt a sure thing and most people living in a population will naturally get the virus. Thpugh it has said the average adult gets the flu twice every 30 years.

But yes technically you are correct. I just dont see us vaccinating every bird, pig, and human in the world which is what we would need to do with this current version of the vaccine to stop it from mutating past the vaccine in a global community. Some research does show it still helps to get the vaccine.

I'll admit I was applying general vaccine knowledge to the flu vaccine. The problem with the flu vaccine is that is different every year. They study and figure out what type of flu it will be and the vaccine is essentially custom made year after year.
The thing mutates like mad.

Other established vaccines, however, need to be taken by everyone healthy enough to do so.

originally posted by: demongoat
a reply to: luthier

uh no, vaccines are active, passive immunity is when you inject blood from already immune people into someone who isn't immune.
no one really does that because we have vaccines.

how the immunity is triggered is irrelevant to how long the immunity lasts, or else we wouldn't even bother with vaccines. in fact immunity lasts depending on the exposure and for how long, not how it is delivered.

what is "adaptive immunity" anyway? our immune system works by tagging a virus and creating an antigen against it, no matter how the infection is delivered.

You are correct. When you are exposed to the illness obvious the length of time is longer. As far as adaptive immunity you sound like the expert maybe you should look it up.

I have limited biological knowledge. My science backround is acoustics. However i can do simple math. The vaccine is not efgective enough for me to say its worth it. It requires they gwt the strain right currently and by the time it comes out the virus can shift. They are working on a way around this. At that point i will revisit the vaccine.