The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines

Source

With the flu season ramping up, many are looking to vaccination as a "preventive" approach. Those who abstain are often accused of being uneducated, or worse, socially irresponsible. Nothing could be further from the truth.

As it presently stands, it is not sound medical science, but primarily economic and political motivation which generates the immense pressure behind mass participation in the annual ritual of flu vaccination.

It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review, which is the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective.

To the contrary, these authoritative reviews reveal there is a conspicuous absence of conclusive evidence as to the effectiveness of influenza vaccines in children under 2, healthy adults, the elderly, and healthcare workers who care for the elderly.

Well as anyone that has ever read one of my vaccine threads before, this comes as no surprise.

I have a couple family members that choose to get the vaccines on a regular basis even though I try and tell them otherwise. They just continue to tell me their doctor told them and until I get my MD, my opinion is just that, and opinion.

I wish somehow more people would read these sort of articles and spread the word so maybe the truth could be understood by the majority of the population.

This was an interesting article and thought I would share it with all of you.

Any thoughts?

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187


I'm with you on this one, the people i know who get the flu shot annually, always seem to still get sick.

I asked a military nurse about this, because they give all the recruits the flu shot.
she told me it's only affective against influenza ,you still catch the common cold.

I still think it's bs and just a money thing for the drug companies, and they teach doctors bs to get them promoting such drugs.

I have been takeing horse-raddish and garlic tablets for the past 2 years, i have never been sick since.

reply to post by dadfortruth1


I think you hit the nail on the head with that one. The true cures and preventative medicine is in what we eat. It has been proven time and time again, yet people still think they get the 'cure' from just a shot. It is much easier for them to get a shot and eat Mcdonalds than to eat healthy and not need the shot in the first place.

“Let food be thy medicine and medicine be thy food”
― Hippocrates

Pred...

reply to post by predator0187
My thoughts? Flu vaccines are worthless (and I'd need to look into it much more before going solid on this, but I think most others might be as well - I believe evidence shows that most serious diseases we have vaccines for were already significantly declining prior to vaccine introduction as a result of sanitation, health, and various other improvements in society):
Does the Vaccine Matter - Atlantic Magazine

In the absence of such evidence, we are left with two possibilities. One is that flu vaccine is in fact highly beneficial, or at least helpful. Solid evidence to that effect would encourage more citizens—and particularly more health professionals—to get their shots and prevent the flu’s spread. As it stands, more than 50 percent of health-care workers say they do not intend to get vaccinated for swine flu and don’t routinely get their shots for seasonal flu, in part because many of them doubt the vaccines’ efficacy. The other possibility, of course, is that we’re relying heavily on vaccines and antivirals that simply don’t work, or don’t work as well as we believe. And as a result, we may be neglecting other, proven measures that could minimize the death rate during pandemics.

reply to post by predator0187


I haven't had a flu shot in over five years. I've been only sick once, stage two pneumonia, and even then didn't take the antibiotics.

I know people who are sick on a regular basis, and they supposedly do all the right things.

Then again, I know people like me who expose themselves to pretty much everything and rarely get sick.

I think it builds our immune systems.

While in the military, I would find a out of the way place and do push ups, jog in place, etc until I was sweating and red in the face. When it came my turn to see the person giving the shot, I looked like a bag of #.

They won't give a person who they think is sick a flu shot.

Originally posted by predator0187
I have a couple family members that choose to get the vaccines on a regular basis even though I try and tell them otherwise. They just continue to tell me their doctor told them and until I get my MD, my opinion is just that, and opinion.

Did you tell them that once you get your MD, you will NOT be ALLOWED to have an "opinion"?

It's amazing how many people out there think doctors can just say what they feel is right...

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by predator0187

 

My thoughts? Flu vaccines are worthless (and I'd need to look into it much more before going solid on this, but I think most others might be as well - I believe evidence shows that most serious diseases we have vaccines for were already significantly declining prior to vaccine introduction as a result of sanitation, health, and various other improvements in society):

Three letters is enough to refute this argument: Hib. Ninety-nine percent decrease in incidence since the vaccine was introduced in the 1980s. Unless you can think of some other factor that changed in US society and nearly wiped out the disease, it was the vaccine.

Here's another one: chickenpox. Ninety percent decrease in incidence since the vaccine was introduced in the 1990s. What "improvements in society" have taken place since the 1990s?

Acute hep B has declined sixty-seven percent since we started universal infant vaccination in 1991. The decline among Americans aged 0-19 years was 89%. Again, other than the vaccination, what has changed since 1991 that can account for this decrease--other than the vaccination program?

Measles is very rare in groups that vaccinate, but there are outbreaks when people stop vaccinating. This happens even in first world countries with top-of-the-line sanitation, nutrition, and public health systems. The only variable is vaccination status.

Flu vaccines work, too. Usually. Influenza mutates rapidly, but if the vaccine is a good match for the circulating strain, it will prevent or reduce the severity of influenza. Even in first world countries with generally good sanitation and health.

Originally posted by FurvusRexCaeli

Originally posted by Praetorius
reply to post by predator0187

 

My thoughts? Flu vaccines are worthless (and I'd need to look into it much more before going solid on this, but I think most others might be as well - I believe evidence shows that most serious diseases we have vaccines for were already significantly declining prior to vaccine introduction as a result of sanitation, health, and various other improvements in society):

Three letters is enough to refute this argument: Hib. Ninety-nine percent decrease in incidence since the vaccine was introduced in the 1980s. Unless you can think of some other factor that changed ..in US society and nearly wiped out the disease, it was the vaccine.

Here's another one: chickenpox. Ninety percent decrease in incidence since the vaccine was introduced in the 1990s. What "improvements in society" have taken place since the 1990s?

Acute hep B has declined sixty-seven percent since we started universal infant vaccination in 1991. The decline among Americans aged 0-19 years was 89%. Again, other than the vaccination, what has changed since 1991 that can account for this decrease--other than the vaccination program?

Measles is very rare in groups that vaccinate, but there are outbreaks when people stop vaccinating. This happens even in first world countries with top-of-the-line sanitation, nutrition, and public health systems. The only variable is vaccination status.

Flu vaccines work, too. Usually. Influenza mutates rapidly, but if the vaccine is a good match for the circulating strain, it will prevent or reduce the severity of influenza. Even in first world countries with generally good sanitation and health.

www.naturalnews.com...

A new scientific study published in The Lancet reveals that influenza vaccines only prevent influenza in 1.5 out of every 100 adults who are injected with the flu vaccine.

new study cast doubt on all that:-

www.naturalnews.com...

...actual data in the study reveal that flu shots help about 1.5 out of every 100 adults. This, of course, translates into a measly 1.5 percent effectiveness rate (www.naturalnews.com...).


www.naturalnews.com...

www.naturalnews.com...

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli
Ah, thanks friend. I'm having a bit of trouble finding useful information, so I appreciate your input. It's been a long time since I've looked into the vaccine debate (and what little bit I did was mainly looking at the autism question), and I don't mean to imply that all vaccines are useless - and apparently may not be up to speed on how many there are out there now.

To clarify my question, I'll say this - as far as some vaccines, for smallpox, polio, and scarlet fever (among others), can you confirm if infection or death rates were already declining significantly prior to introduction of vaccines, or otherwise equally declining between vaccinated and non-vaccinated areas (as you appear to have information handy on the topic)? Any information you have would be appreciated.

As to the flu vaccine - I probably should have phrased that differently. When the vaccine prepared is a match for the strain in circulation, some good might be done. But, how often is that the case, first off? And how thoroughly is all the evidence considered, in light of the facts that mismatches or lack of vaccinations don't result in increased infection or mortality rates (the entire article I provided is well worth a read as provides some dissenting opinions, facts I didn't know, and asks why we don't simply conduct placebo trials to settle the question once and for all)?

Is it likely wise for the very young and elderly to continue getting flu vaccines? Probably best to take all available steps. But do I still have doubts about how much good it's really doing in light of flu season infection histories?

Absolutely.

reply to post by nobodysavedme


This is why I love NaturalNews. They take a study, twist what it says (or outright lie, in this case) and then publish certain parts of it in big, scary letters. How does anyone still take that rag of a website seriously? It has been proven to be wrong on numerous occasions on ATS.

Your first source claims that "a new study" shows poor efficacy of flu vaccine. What the source they cite ACTUALLY claims is that retrospective, observational studies aren't strong enough to make an estimate, and that researchers should rely on diagnostic studies, instead. It also highlights that our current vaccine formulation is most effective in young children, but only marginally so in older adults, an area we certainly need to work on.

Your next source claims that drug companies "admitted the flu shot is worthless". The article they cite as their evidence doesn't mention this anywhere. What it DOES mention is that there is research being done on a vaccine that would cover all currently known flu strains, something we aren't capable of doing right now due to technologic constraints. Again, NaturalNews has lied and hoped you didn't notice (but I did).

Your last source claims Maurice Hilleman makes statements that are found no where in the "interview" they cite. Instead, it is someone else stating these things over a video of Hilleman saying something completely different. NONE of the quotes attributed to Hilleman are even spoken by him in the interview! How do you seriously consider this a legitimate source of news, natural or otherwise?!

reply to post by FurvusRexCaeli


THANK YOU!!!
It was so frustrating reading these comments about medical professionals being "taught" to push vaccines so pharmaceutical companies could make more bucks. It was refreshing to read your insightful reply.

School did not "teach" me to push vaccines. I suggest patients to get the flu shot because the benefits outweigh the risks tremendously, just like other vaccines! Some of us have better immune systems than others...and if you are one of them, good for you.
Yes, we should all eat healthy and exercise but sometimes that just does not cut it. Especially for elementary school children and the elderly.

And obviously, you can still catch the common cold if you have the flu shot....hence the name "flu shot".......

reply to post by predator0187


VERY important reminder. Also, not only are vaccines' "benefits" questionable - but research shows that routine vaccinations short-circuit the immune system and prevent people from developing broad-based immunities, which would otherwise develop with 'natural' infections.


S&F

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by nobodysavedme

 

This is why I love NaturalNews. They take a study, twist what it says (or outright lie, in this case) and then publish certain parts of it in big, scary letters.

no no no.

you got it wrong.

the wrong way round.

what happens is that big pharma twists the figures to look much better then they actually are so that they can rake in the cash and then natural news untwists them back to reveal the sad truth.

i can prove it too and this is NOT from natural news.

www.hysterectomy-association.org.uk...

see they how fake the figures?

it is shocking and fraudulent.

ALWAYS FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL.

reply to post by predator0187


I don't think they are engineering the flu vaccines.
I think they are engineering the flu.

reply to post by newcovenant


The article you posted provides no evidence for their figures. The only link they provide (to a tabloid, the Daily Mail) links to an article on shipbuilding costs, not Herceptin.

Please carefully examine your sources before posting them. Anyone can post anything on the internet and claim it is true. Only those with verifiable sources should be trusted.

reply to post by VneZonyDostupa


It's not the fault of nobodysavedme, but the way the news sector operates.

Newspapers renew layouts often. The internet address likely changes together with the redesign in cases.

As it can be seen, it was "Posted on June 16, 2008 by Linda PH".

Internet links cannot be expected to be accessible years later in the news sector at least.

2 sources given : Journal of Clinical Oncology via proxy from Daily Mail news and Clinical Breast Cancer, but miscited in the parentheses in 2nd paragraph(clin. breast cancer, 2002; suppl 2:275-9, but should have been, clin. breast cancer, 2002; suppl 2:S75-9).

The later paragraphs on survival and death rates didn't cite any, though. Unclear if those 2 contain it



The Daily Mail news is now here

Experts warn of 'acceptable' heart risk from Herceptin
By EMILY COOK

Last updated at 00:38 15 August 2006

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-400600/Experts-warn-acceptable-heart-risk-Herceptin.html

(...)

In the latest study of 173 patients, 28 per cent of those treated with Herceptin were found to have experienced a "cardiac event" after a follow-up at 32 months.

The majority of these patients experienced the problems while being treated with Herceptin alone, after prior combined Herceptin and chemotherapy treatment.

The other 18 were being treated with a combination of Herceptin and chemotherapy. There was one cardiac-related death.

The study, published in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, found that when patients stopped using Herceptin and were treated with heart drugs such as beta-blockers, their heart function improved.

After repairing the damage, patients were then able to resume Herceptin treatment.

Dr Francisco Esteva, of the University of Texas, said: "The drug substantially prolongs survival, and while we found substantial cardiac toxicity, we also discovered that this side effect can be successfully treated, which was not clearly known before this study.

"If the cardiac side effects of Herceptin treatment can be managed, the drug is safe to use."

(...)

It refers to below peer reviewed study :

Long-Term Cardiac Tolerability of Trastuzumab in Metastatic Breast Cancer: The M.D. Anderson Cancer Center Experience

Journal of Clinical Oncology, September 1, 2006 vol. 24 no. 25 4107-4115

jco.ascopubs.org/content/24/25/4107.abstract

NHS of UK gave an analysis, too long to be quoted



The other peer reviewed study is

Clinical Breast Cancer
Volume 3, Supplement 2, October 2002, Pages S75-S79

HER2-Positive Breast Cancer: Update on Breast Cancer International Research Group Trials

www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1526820911702932

affiliations

Cancer Therapy Development Program and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles

Breast Cancer International Research Group, Los Angeles, CA

Breast Cancer International Research Group, Edmonton, AB, Canada

Breast Cancer International Research Group, Paris, France

Abstract

HER2 gene amplification occurs in approximately 20% of primary breast cancers and is associated with a poor prognosis. Recently, trastuzumab, a humanized murine monoclonal antibody directed against the extracellular domain of HER2, was introduced for the treatment of patients with HER2-overexpressing advanced breast cancer. Trastuzumab has activity as both a single agent and in combination with chemotherapy. However, trastuzumab in conjunction with anthracyclines produces an unacceptably high rate of cardiac toxicity, which has prompted the search for alternative regimens. Docetaxel and the platinum salts are logical candidates to be combined with trastuzumab since these agents exhibit potent synergy with the antibody in preclinical experiments. Furthermore, the available phase II clinical data using the TCH (docetaxel/platinum/trastuzumab) regimen suggest this combination has significant activity. The Breast Cancer International Research Group (BCIRG) 006 trial is a 3-arm adjuvant study comparing doxorubicin/cyclophosphamide followed by docetaxel, the same regimen with trastuzumab administered with docetaxel (TH), and TCH in 3150 women with nodepositive or high-risk node-negative, HER2-positive breast cancer. BCIRG 007 compares TH and TCH as firstline therapy in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. In both trials, entry is restricted to patients whose tumors are positive for HER2 gene amplification as determined by fluorescence in situ hybridization. The data from these trials, in addition to the results from other ongoing randomized studies, will help define the optimal way to utilize trastuzumab in the management of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by newcovenant

 

The article you posted provides no evidence for their figures. The only link they provide (to a tabloid, the Daily Mail) links to an article on shipbuilding costs, not Herceptin.

Please carefully examine your sources before posting them. Anyone can post anything on the internet and claim it is true. Only those with verifiable sources should be trusted.

since you can't access the article.here it is.everyone note this is how figures are manipulated.

Herceptin seems to have a number of side effects that are begining to come to light – see this Daily Mail article for evidence of this.

Unfortunately the receptors found in Herceptin seem to get in the way of other cell receptors in the body as well – notably in the heart and lungs (clin. breast cancer, 2002; suppl 2:275-9). It appears that heart damage seems to occur in around 1 in every 25 patients and in up to 40% of cases the following side effects can occur:

* severe flu like symptoms
* nausea and vomiting
* fatigue
* closing of the throat
* swelling of tongue, hands, lips and feet
* rashes and hives
* lung problems
* coughing
* fast and/or irregular heartbeat
* heart failure
* shaking, dizziness and a feeling of weakness
* respiratory distress
* fever and/or chills
* headache
* white blood cell count anaphylactic shock

Currently, research has suggested that there is a 50% increase in the survival rate of patients taking Herceptin. However, when you look at the figures it reads more like 12%, this is because 75.4% of patients were found to be disease free after three years on conventional treatment, whilst 87.1% were disease free after three years on Herceptin.

In other trials Hercpetin has increased the death rate after three years from 91.7% to 94.3%, which is an icrease of just 3% and in one trial that compared Herceptin to no treatment at all the death rates ‘were NOT significantly differnent’ with just over 2% deaths for no treatment to just under 2% of deaths with Herceptin.

It’s all in how you read the figures, sure the study might show a 33% increase in survival, but that 33% comes from the difference between 8% and 5%!


he study might show a 33% increase in survival, but that 33% comes from the difference between 8% and 5%!


study might show a 33% increase in survival, but that 33% comes from the difference between 8% and 5%!


this is how all these crappy drug are marketed. 33% difference between 8 and 5%.

8% and 5% are subject to margins of error in complex subjects like humans so they untrustworthy and just look at the side effects.

just look at the huge profit margin in this crappy drug.i daresay if you were the maker of this drug you would throw morals aside and rake in the money too.

nearly every drugs efficacy is marketed this way...33% difference between 8 and 5%.


i think bleach would be safer in equivalent doses.


here is another study today look:-

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

Annual vaccination against influenza virus hampers development of virus-specific CD8⁺ T cell immunity in children.

"infection with seasonal influenza A viruses induces immunity to potentially pandemic influenza A viruses of other subtypes (heterosubtypic immunity). We recently demonstrated that vaccination against seasonal influenza prevented the induction of heterosubtypic immunity against influenza....

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by newcovenant

 

The article you posted provides no evidence for their figures. The only link they provide (to a tabloid, the Daily Mail) links to an article on shipbuilding costs, not Herceptin.

Please carefully examine your sources before posting them. Anyone can post anything on the internet and claim it is true. Only those with verifiable sources should be trusted.

I didn't post any articles or links. I can say what I think and you can believe it or not.

I said....I don't think they are manipulating the flu vaccine.
I think they are manipulating the flu virus itself from year to year.

I think they are doing their best to have the vaccine match whatever VIRUS they've created.

When they finally arrive at the perfect flu...(and this will be a disease designed to kill everyone but white people above a specified economic class and also spare those who subscribe to a specified religious or political doctrine) you will not get a vaccine or it will be a placebo. Poverty will kill these people too but it takes too long so we are speeding the process up by introducing new and targeted disease.

It isn't the vaccine you have to be afraid of.
You should fear the influenza virus.

How many people has influenza killed to date? Over a hundred million.
Just to head you off, I don't think cleaner conditions and modern advances are enough to explain the decline in deaths. I think IMMUNITY DOES explain it however. Once you HAVE IT and survive it, you won't get it again.

The symptoms of human influenza were clearly described by Hippocrates roughly 2,400 years ago...
almost the entire indigenous population of the Antilles was killed by an epidemic resembling influenza that broke out in 1493, after the arrival of Christopher Columbus...
an outbreak in 1580, which began in Russia and spread to Europe via Africa. In Rome, over 8,000 people were killed, and several Spanish cities were almost wiped out...
The most famous and lethal outbreak was the 1918 flu pandemic (Spanish flu pandemic) (type A influenza, H1N1 subtype), which lasted from 1918 to 1919. It is not known exactly how many it killed, but estimates range from 20 to 100 million people.en.wikipedia.org...

How many deaths from the flu vaccine? Thousands presumably

Thousands of Americans died from H1N1 even after receiving vaccine shots...www.naturalnews.com...

...though most of these probably were immunized too late and so died of H1N1 and not the immunization shot to protect from it. Whatever the number, who have died after the vaccine, it is thousands and not millions or hundreds of millions.

Anyone remember the nasty conspiracy surrounding AIDS?

Why bother engineering the antidote when you can engineer the influenza itself?

If you can tailor a virus to kill very specific groups of people and leave the rest, there are people who will pay for that science. You can't deny that.
If you really wanted to target groups of people or diminish the population you would let the influenza run its course. Maybe one year we should do that and allow the casualties to speak for themselves. Some people will not believe in cures without dead bodies to prove the disease is actually deadly.

How quickly we forget and how easily our eye is taken off the ball.

If I had children - I would keep their immunizations to a bare minimum and yes, I think there can be serious complications and dangerous negative interactions for some regardless of precaution. I think drug companies are among the most dangerous and deadly groups on the planet today.
I think over-immunization HAS contributed to autism in some children and poses an unspecific threat to others, BUT if I were elderly I would absolutely get the flu shot every year. Pneumonia is the first cause of death in that group and the flu can easily turn into pneumonia.

reply to post by predator0187


I work in a hospital and we have mandated vaccination, or we have to wear a mask. Since I do not shave my beard off all the way I would have to a complete peice that coveres my entire head as a mask would not be flush against my skin. Many nurses are against vaccination, but choose to do so because of the difficulties involved in refusing. Several did refuse this year.

reply to post by newcovenant


My question to you is this, is the strain the vaccine is effective against the same strain that wiped out those cities?

If not, then your fearmongering is meaningless as the vaccine will do nothing to prevent that.