Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Shocking Report on Flu Vaccines

a reply to: luthier

i already did, active and passive are how you get the immunity, active is when your body produces the antibodies and passive is when you get them from someone else.

dude this took me all of 2 minutes. [url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/how-vaccines-work.aspx][www.nhs.uk...[/u rl]

if you don't know the basics i don't think you are really knowledgeable enough to decide their effectiveness. you are just arguing from perfect solution here, of course they change rapidly but getting a vaccine lowers your risk of infection even if it's not perfect.

i just find your rational illogical.

originally posted by: THEatsking

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.

honestly i am disappointed with adults who fear vaccines, they have so much information from people who have no stake in lying to them but choose to believe nonsense that confirms their biases.

when i say information i mean on what vaccines do, how they interact with the body, basic stuff unconnected with "big pharma"

originally posted by: Agartha
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.

Thanks will read. And doshi is an editor for a science journal and does have peer reviewed articles. He is also a professor. He is not a quack in any way as you represent him.

Trust me i have read a lot on the subject and have enough understanding ofthe scientific method to see some problems as do peers in some of the articles.

In a few years when they find a long term solution to the mutation problem i will revisit.

However none of the articles you presented in this last post were even close to your original 93 percent. 58 percent is like tossing a coin.

Again this is all changes year to year with the predictive accuracy of the cdc. Modelling is helping for sure but a lot of money has been made on a vaccine you have to get every year. Including ones like last year when it basically didnt work at all.

I am not against vaccines at all. This particular one i think is still weak enough only people who need the extra protection should get it. It seems like a waste of money to me when so much needs to be done in other areas.

Cars kill millions of people yet no one cares to fix the problem by spending on public transportation in the us. Why? Probably because that doesnt make enough people money and would make other people loose money. If people dont think its about money they are naive. What we care to do about problems is completely driven by profit. The flu kills people for sure. A lot less where people have access to hospitals and sanitation even without the vaccine.

Ps i am used to studies you can "check the math in" so its hard for me to not see all the variables in medical studies that can effect causation predictions. Its as good as we can do with cross referencing smaller lab work studies i guess.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree with you on most points, the only thing that sticks in my craw is that you bundled MMR with chickenpox and the flu. Measles are not something that is easily survivable, mumps are incredibly painful and serious and Rubella, particularly Scarlet Fever can negatively impact your immune system for life if you get over it. The flu vaccine is only a few degrees shy of snake oil as far as I'm concerned and the chickenpox vaccine is all but useless in 99% of the population because most of us can survive it without ill effect. Otherwise good post, I like it.

originally posted by: demongoat
a reply to: luthier

i already did, active and passive are how you get the immunity, active is when your body produces the antibodies and passive is when you get them from someone else.

dude this took me all of 2 minutes. [url=http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/vaccinations/pages/how-vaccines-work.aspx][www.nhs.uk...[/u rl]

if you don't know the basics i don't think you are really knowledgeable enough to decide their effectiveness. you are just arguing from perfect solution here, of course they change rapidly but getting a vaccine lowers your risk of infection even if it's not perfect.

i just find your rational illogical.

What are you talking about? I didnt say to look up active or passive. Active is from virus passive from mom. I didnt say that. You said "what is adaptive immunity". I said look it up.

Perfect situation? Like what just over 50 percent effective. Thats just barely a coin toss.

Second do you understand drifts and shifts? The vaccine will not protect against a shift until people get sick and then they need time to produce a vaccine. You may have some protection from a drift but might not have any.

Getting sick means your exposure to the virus is much longer than a vaccine meaning longer and more robust immunity. The average aduly gets the flu 2 times in 30 years. Is that enough for the government to spend millions on vaccines? Maybe. I dont think so though.

Dont worry a better one is coming in a few years and then we will both agree.

Oh and both i and my children have vaccines. Just not chicken pox or the flu.

a reply to: demongoat

Mercury in any dose can compromise natural immunities. I can't find the article (I will look for it) but there is a study that the small amount of mercury that is in fish has been study to cause the same effect in a decrease in the bodies natural immunity system.

Here is one article that speaks about the flu shot and its effect on the immune system
articles.mercola.com...

originally posted by: amberinsc
a reply to: demongoat

Mercury in any dose can compromise natural immunities. I can't find the article (I will look for it) but there is a study that the small amount of mercury that is in fish has been study to cause the same effect in a decrease in the bodies natural immunity system.

Here is one article that speaks about the flu shot and its effect on the immune system
articles.mercola.com...

Thanks for posting. I do like studies that actually involve lab work. It just seems less likely to draw false conclusions of causation. Unfortunately they are also small in comparrison to the larger literary studies.

a reply to: luthier

I was trying to avoid re-reading the articles I posted to find that 90%! lol
This is what I was talking about:

Vaccination helps protect women during pregnancy and their babies for up to 6 months after they are born. One study showed that giving flu vaccine to pregnant women was 91.5% effective in preventing hospitalization of infants for flu.

From here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In my original post I didn't specified it was about infants.

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: luthier

I was trying to avoid re-reading the articles I posted to find that 90%! lol
This is what I was talking about:

Vaccination helps protect women during pregnancy and their babies for up to 6 months after they are born. One study showed that giving flu vaccine to pregnant women was 91.5% effective in preventing hospitalization of infants for flu.

From here: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In my original post I didn't specified it was about infants.

Yeah the in womb infant stuff is interesting. Like moms taking pro biotics pass it to kids etc. I am reading the info and thanks for the time.

When they do crack the code and have a better flu shot i will be less skeptical. The ADD medication surge has made me a profound skeptic that we would do such a thing without good long term research to kids. If we would do that i dont know what else we would do.

originally posted by: luthier


What are you talking about? I didnt say to look up active or passive. Active is from virus passive from mom. I didnt say that. You said "what is adaptive immunity". I said look it up.

people just throw that term out like they know what it means, i don't think they do, do you know what it means?

Perfect situation? Like what just over 50 percent effective. Thats just barely a coin toss.

it's a fallacy, it means that you don't find it perfect so you reject it flat out, by the way please go read about what those percentages mean.
it's 50% effective over nothing, so you have a 50% chance more of being immune, 50% more is a coin toss?

Second do you understand drifts and shifts? The vaccine will not protect against a shift until people get sick and then they need time to produce a vaccine. You may have some protection from a drift but might not have any.

yes i do, and why is this a problem? this is how adaptation works, you can't know about something until you are aware of it, come on now this is a weak issue to raise.
drifts are close enough that most of the time they will be covered by vaccines. it's shifts, sudden changes that defeat vaccines.

Getting sick means your exposure to the virus is much longer than a vaccine meaning longer and more robust immunity.

no it's not, that is silly. your immune system doesn't know the difference between a live virus and the proteins from a vaccine, this is why we even bother with vaccines. the length of time immunity lasts has nothing to do with how the trigger to the resistance or immunity is delivered, your body doesn't know the difference. it lasts until you stop getting exposed and the memory cells die off.

your immune system is as robust as your over-all health, how the virus gets inside is irrelevant, where did you get the idea that how you get the virus matters?

The average aduly gets the flu 2 times in 30 years. Is that enough for the government to spend millions on vaccines? Maybe. I dont think so though.

no the typical adult over 30 gets the flu twice every 10 years, this is typical not every adult. i am an adult and i have diabetes type II and i will die if i don't receive medical attention if i get the flu.
children and the elderly are even more susceptible to it, children because they are around more people and elderly because their immune systems are weakened from old age.

you don't think we should spend money to protect vulnerable people from a potentially deadly virus?

Dont worry a better one is coming in a few years and then we will both agree.

Oh and both i and my children have vaccines. Just not chicken pox or the flu.

yeah i've read about the genetic modifications.

originally posted by: amberinsc


Mercury in any dose can compromise natural immunities. I can't find the article (I will look for it) but there is a study that the small amount of mercury that is in fish has been study to cause the same effect in a decrease in the bodies natural immunity system.

methylmercury was never used in vaccines. also it's the build up of exposure methylmercury that causes problems, so eating contaminated fish over long periods is bad for you.

Here is one article that speaks about the flu shot and its effect on the immune system
articles.mercola.com...

i read the study, your link is wrong about their findings. they found some kids vaccinated had lower c8 t-cell count they tentatively attributed to the vaccine but they also found that other kids who were unvaccinated had lower counts based on age, so it's not conclusive. also by the end they say they aren't trying to convince anyone not to vaccinate their kids and support the findings that vaccines protect children from the flu.

originally posted by: demongoat

originally posted by: luthier


What are you talking about? I didnt say to look up active or passive. Active is from virus passive from mom. I didnt say that. You said "what is adaptive immunity". I said look it up.

people just throw that term out like they know what it means, i don't think they do, do you know what it means?

Perfect situation? Like what just over 50 percent effective. Thats just barely a coin toss.

it's a fallacy, it means that you don't find it perfect so you reject it flat out, by the way please go read about what those percentages mean.
it's 50% effective over nothing, so you have a 50% chance more of being immune, 50% more is a coin toss?

Second do you understand drifts and shifts? The vaccine will not protect against a shift until people get sick and then they need time to produce a vaccine. You may have some protection from a drift but might not have any.

yes i do, and why is this a problem? this is how adaptation works, you can't know about something until you are aware of it, come on now this is a weak issue to raise.
drifts are close enough that most of the time they will be covered by vaccines. it's shifts, sudden changes that defeat vaccines.

Getting sick means your exposure to the virus is much longer than a vaccine meaning longer and more robust immunity.

no it's not, that is silly. your immune system doesn't know the difference between a live virus and the proteins from a vaccine, this is why we even bother with vaccines. the length of time immunity lasts has nothing to do with how the trigger to the resistance or immunity is delivered, your body doesn't know the difference. it lasts until you stop getting exposed and the memory cells die off.

your immune system is as robust as your over-all health, how the virus gets inside is irrelevant, where did you get the idea that how you get the virus matters?

The average aduly gets the flu 2 times in 30 years. Is that enough for the government to spend millions on vaccines? Maybe. I dont think so though.

no the typical adult over 30 gets the flu twice every 10 years, this is typical not every adult. i am an adult and i have diabetes type II and i will die if i don't receive medical attention if i get the flu.
children and the elderly are even more susceptible to it, children because they are around more people and elderly because their immune systems are weakened from old age.

you don't think we should spend money to protect vulnerable people from a potentially deadly virus?

Dont worry a better one is coming in a few years and then we will both agree.

Oh and both i and my children have vaccines. Just not chicken pox or the flu.

yeah i've read about the genetic modifications.

You are completely misrepresenting everything i said.

You should get your shot just like i said. I dont need one.

Sorry buddy but getting sick and your immune response is a normal part of building immunity. The fever (metab increase), all of it is necessary to maintain a healthy immune system for most people. If you have no ill effects of the virus after your illness your body will have gone through the whole process of fighting a virus or cold which is very beneficial for you not harmful as you have pulled out of thin air.

You do realize the immune system is not just about immunity but your body being able to fight off illness in general right? What you are saying is as long as you have the right vaccine its the same. Possibly. what i am saying is the immune system is more than the antigens. Its all the barriors and your bodies ability to get the whole system working not to mention your t cells dont learn very fast. Hence needing your boosters.

It also means it has a 50 percent chance of not working right? What about if you had naturally had the flu? What are your chances of getting it again? How much does it need to drift before getting it again?

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines. Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single, natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.” [6]Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

And another interesting read about infection rate of natural 9 percent vs vaccine 23 percent of the flu.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: DumpMaster

I thought the flu jab was compulsory in the US (I guess that's where you are from). We have also never had the flu but I think people sometimes confuse the influenza with a bad cold, influenza can be lethal with those that are weaker. I am a nurse and I have all vaccines as I have a moral obligation to protect patients in whichever way possible.

I agree that the flu shot is the weakest of all vaccines and, like I said yesterday, it works differently each year, depending on the strains. However, scientists are working on a new universal flu jab that will be go for the stem of the virus instead of the 'spikes': www.nhs.uk...

I'm from Ontario Canada, it's been mandatory since long before I was born. Not the flu vaccine but the others that people are all paranoid about.

That's great news to hear they are doing the flu differently, last years was such a failure.

originally posted by: DumpMaster

originally posted by: Agartha
a reply to: DumpMaster

I thought the flu jab was compulsory in the US (I guess that's where you are from). We have also never had the flu but I think people sometimes confuse the influenza with a bad cold, influenza can be lethal with those that are weaker. I am a nurse and I have all vaccines as I have a moral obligation to protect patients in whichever way possible.

I agree that the flu shot is the weakest of all vaccines and, like I said yesterday, it works differently each year, depending on the strains. However, scientists are working on a new universal flu jab that will be go for the stem of the virus instead of the 'spikes': www.nhs.uk...

I'm from Ontario Canada, it's been mandatory since long before I was born. Not the flu vaccine but the others that people are all paranoid about.

That's great news to hear they are doing the flu differently, last years was such a failure.

It will take a few more years most likely for a new vaccine.

I stopped getting the shot about 12 years ago...I worked with a woman who had previously worked at some warehouse they were stored (either before shipping or after, can't recall) but she told me that they were never stored at the proper temperature, thus making them go bad or be ineffective.

Now, I don't know if this vaccine even needs to be refrigerated or what, maybe she had no idea what she was talking about...but since I stopped getting the shot I haven't had the flu.

originally posted by: luthier

You are completely misrepresenting everything i said.

really? point it out instead of just making the accusation.

You should get your shot just like i said. I dont need one.

then you aren't being very smart.

Sorry buddy but getting sick and your immune response is a normal part of building immunity.

uh the immunity is because your body can recognize the virus, tag it and destroy it, do you have a clue how our body works?
part of gaining immunity is exposure to the proteins of the virus without the virus causing harm to you.

The fever (metab increase), all of it is necessary to maintain a healthy immune system for most people.

If you have no ill effects of the virus after your illness your body will have gone through the whole process of fighting a virus or cold which is very beneficial for you not harmful as you have pulled out of thin air.
how in the world is letting a virus you can treat infect you better than being able to eradicate it before it spreads and kills you? this is ridiculous.
you don't understand how the immune system works, a vaccine does the same thing you claim is better without putting any stress on your body or create as many complications as a virus would.

You do realize the immune system is not just about immunity but your body being able to fight off illness in general right?

"immunity" is the result of your immune system doing it's job, look up memory cells, they allow the body to recognize the same pathogens and have a faster reaction time to them.
for all the stuff you say, you really want to make it seem like vaccines are some faux version of some natural process when it's just a clever way to get the effects of what would otherwise be a potentially dangerous invader without all the suffering.

What you are saying is as long as you have the right vaccine its the same. Possibly.

if you have the right strain of virus it's the same, what in gods name do you think a vaccine is!? it's a bloody virus that has been clubbed to death so it can't infect people! why do you think they use a preservative? to scare vaxxers with the boogieman of mercury? no, so the capsil proteins, the things that cause the production of antigens to not decay.

what i am saying is the immune system is more than the antigens.

never said it was, this is what a vaccine is for though! to trigger the production of antigens, that is all it does, vaccines trigger our natural defenses, and puts them on high alert. you do realize that we live in an environment full of strains of viruses right? we are constantly bombarded by viruses, so people sneeze on us and we breath in the virus and our defenses kill it off before it gets a foot hold, it's like ringing a bell before the hordes get within a mile of the ramparts.

Its all the barriors and your bodies ability to get the whole system working not to mention your t cells dont learn very fast. Hence needing your boosters.

yes and? the advantage to vaccines is that the virus in them can't reproduce, it's dead. so all the effects of being on high alert without needing to use resources to fight off the infection that triggers the cycle.

It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines.

you don't know what a vaccine is do you?

Whereas immunity from disease often follows a single, natural infection, immunity from vaccines occurs only after several doses.” [6]Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia

because they intentionally choose weaker viruses to put into vaccines so that if they don't kill all the viruses in the vaccine it won't cause you too much harm.
which is more important? dying in the process or getting the immunity to the virus? at least you won't be dead with a vaccine, even if it takes longer.

And another interesting read about infection rate of natural 9 percent vs vaccine 23 percent of the flu.

dude this is from over 20 years ago come on, at least use current studies.

a reply to: demongoat

I see you dont understand the immune system so i am done trying to convince you. You obviously didnt read the paper i linked you either.

Some day you will get sick. The immune system is more than antigens.

The vaccine bypasses all your other defenses. So yes it is good at the immune response. Unfortunately you will get sick and it is well proven if you dont your body doesnt work together as well to fight infection or illness.

Its you that seems to not umderstand this stuff. I understand the vaccine. You are lumping me as an antivaxer. I am not. The flu is not a big deal. I am healthy amd never had a problem fighting a cold or the flu. The study i gave you which is a peer reviewed paper clearly shows natural infection had more than twice the level of protection against shifts in the virus.


So just a genetic fallacy or is the 20 year old study not true? Is there zero medical evidence that fighting off illness (non threating to a healthy person) is not beneficial in a way vaccines are not?

Do you think its possible to contain a virus that mutates like the flu? Herd mentality here right? Are you going to isolate every mutating virus across the globe (airplanes and boats) and every bird and pig?

What is wrong with a healthy person getting the flu by there choice? Unless you have a shot that has dealt with the mutation your just guessing. You cant stop the flu like we are doing it so i dont see the point in forcing everyone. You cant. The point is people need the virus to have gone through the immune system so they can fight the drifted virus next year or later in the season. If you have kids or go in public chances are you have contact.

Vaccines aren't guaranteed and depending on the type, they are no where near 90 percentile effectiveness. Each year it changes.

Virus mutate all the time and each year, Scientists have to "GUESS" how they mutate in order to develop the correct vaccines. Often times, they GET IT WRONG.

For example, for 2014's Flu Vaccination, it was claimed that it was only 40% injections were effective, because they guessed right on a few strains but also got quite a few wrong.

So it's really up to you if you want to play the guessing game each year with substances going into your blood.

For me, I will not take it.

I don't have any particular sickness, I'm a perfectly healthy male for my age. So I choose not to Vaccinate.

Why I made the choice not to be vaccinated? Well, for one, I know for a fact, 100% guaranteed, a FLU virus will not "KILL" me. Yeah sure, it'll make me miserable for at least 7 days no matter what. So I will just have to "ride" it out when it hits. I normally do.

To be honest, without getting Vaccines like ever, unlike others, I actually do get the FLU and do get sick. Maybe not like 2 to 3 times a year, but at least... once a year or maybe once every 2 years. The point is, I do get it.

When it's really bad, like, you hear on the news that the flu outbreak is on the rise, I would most likely catch it. Last year I caught it, the year before I caught it and I can't remember 3 years ago if I caught anything but maybe not.

It is just fine.... your body's immune system kicks ass and take names, then you develop your own immunity against this particular strain of virus. Whatever doesn't kill you, make you stronger right?

I just don't understand the fixation on Vaccines....

What the hell is wrong with all the people seemingly wanting to live in a vacuum environment with 0 germs (you'll actually die from that btw). So paranoid about viruses this and that... want a magic pill that protects you from anything/everything...

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: chr0naut
a reply to: SlapMonkey

I have the influenza vaccine every year, and have for some time. (I get it for free in my country).

As you can see, I'm completely dead.

Well its obviously not "completely free". That is ridiculous. You pay for it and were never even asked if it was ok. Its just taxes that do it. Or do you think its the goodness of the vaccine provider doing the research and distribution?

Second its not about that either. Its about whether it works or not.

I get sick of some kind once a year and you can see I am not dead.

OK, the Influenza Vaccine is entirely voluntary here, there is no governmental mandate that I must get it. In my case (I have diabetes) the government here fully subsidizes the cost of the vaccine and the visit to the practice nurse who gives the shot.

I have never had symptoms of influenza after having a flu shot.

Prior to getting the shots, when I did get the flu, it always seemed to last longer and affect me worse than those around me. That doesn't happen any more and validates (to me) the efficacy of the shots.

As I understand the statistics and medical research, the majority of people who receive immunization shots have a similar experience to mine.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
I haven't had a flu shot for over 30 years and I have only had the flu once in that time. All those around me, what has gotten it regularly..get the flu regularly, go figure. I don't get it anyway,if the flu shot works so well for those that get it...then why is it that those who get it demonize those who don't? If it works, then you should have nothing to worry about, from those who don't get it.

Right, but if you're perfectly healthy every year without contracting it, why should there be so many attempts at coercing me by doctors and the gov't (and even my employers) to get the shot when my health history shows that it's apparent that my body is capable of providing the defenses I need?

To keep in the spirit of the link in the OP, I must say that this does seem more like it's motivated more by money than to keep Americans healthy, because there are many other ways that don't involve a needle and a clinic to aid your body's ability to ward off and fight diseases naturally.

But, you know, some of that requires hard word and actual effort--I wonder when they'll create a vaccination that blocks Americans' apathy toward personal responsibility for their own health (other than the claimed easy fixes of pills and vaccinations).

Right, but if you're perfectly healthy every year without contracting it, why should there be so many attempts at coercing me by doctors and the gov't (and even my employers) to get the shot when my health history shows that it's apparent that my body is capable of providing the defenses I need?

Because they want us, and the furture generations of our children dead, so that their future generations will own everything and not have to share with the rest of us.