Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
New study shows that those who receive flu vaccines are more likely to spread the flu than those who are unvaccinated. Authors conclude that with additional confirmation, this could impact vaccination policies.
Infectious virus in exhaled breath of symptomatic seasonal influenza cases from a college community
Jing Yan, Michael Grantham, Jovan Pantelic, P. Jacob Bueno de Mesquita, Barbara Albert, Fengjie Liu, Sheryl Ehrman, Donald K. Milton and EMIT Consortium
PNAS 2018; published ahead of print January 18, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1716561115
Self-reported vaccination for the current season was associated with a trend (P < 0.10) toward higher viral shedding in fine-aerosol samples; vaccination with both the current and previous year’s seasonal vaccines, however, was significantly associated with greater fine-aerosol shedding in unadjusted and adjusted models (P < 0.01).
In adjusted models, we observed 6.3 (95% CI 1.9–21.5) times more aerosol shedding among cases with vaccination in the current and previous season compared with having no vaccination in those two seasons.
Moderator cut: copyright. removed paragraphs because you are only allowed a link and a snippet/few sentences.
You have misinterpreted the study. All of the participants were infected with wild influenza virus. Those infected people who had been vaccinated were shedding more wild virus than infected people who had not been vaccinated. That does not mean that people who were vaccinated and did not get infected despite the vaccine will cause flu to spread.
In the part of your post that was deleted the authors point out that the results of the study will have to be confirmed in additional research.
The question is whether the difference is clinically significant, since everyone with flu can spread it, regardless of vaccination status. It is likely that the benefit of the vaccine in preventing infection, even though the effectiveness of the vaccine is less than perfect, will outweigh any differences in the amount of virus shed by a vaccinated person who gets infected with flu.
In addition, some strains spread more readily than others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtovenice
Did you read the article? It found that those who were vaccinated spread the flu, and those who vaccinated for at least two years in a row spread the flu 6.3 times the rate of people who weren't vaccinated.
Those are stunning and very compelling statistics as to who is actually spreading the flu and why. Maybe it explains how the vaccinated are getting sick. They are infecting and reinfected each other on some level.
Think of the low efficacy of the flu shot. Now all these people are all around each other spreading the disease at 6.3 times = 630% MORE than people who never were vaccinated.
It's an incredible statistic regarding the safety of this vaccination. It shows that this vaccination could in fact HARM others by making them sick at a higher rate than wild disease.
We cannot argue what to do in this forum. But I think the implications are pretty clear.
No, the article stated that those who had been vaccinated shed more virus. It never concluded that they are "spreading the flu at 6.3 times the rate of people who weren't vaccinated". They did not study that at all.
Someone who gets the flu despite the vaccine either has a strain not covered by the vaccine or did not get the vaccine early enough.
The virus discussed in the study is the wild virus, not the vaccine virus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jo48
This is called Shedding from the Vaccines.
The virus studied in the article in the OP is wild influenza virus. The vaccine virus cannot be shed because it is inactivated.
Well, y'all want to stay away from me then. I got the flu shot last year, I got it this year, and I plan to get it next year. My question to you guys would be, if you don't want to get a flu shot because of such silly reasoning, are you going to take Tamiflu when you get the flu?
If you go to the CDC's web site they point out some of the differences: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/protect/keyfacts.htm. I quote and placed in bold the important part of the seasonal flu vaccine this year: "For the 2017-2018 flu season, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends annual influenza vaccination for everyone 6 months and older with either the inactivated influenza vaccine (IIV) or the recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV). The nasal spray flu vaccine (live attenuated influenza vaccine or LAIV) should not be used during 2017-2018."
The 'study' was done from December of 2012 to March of 2013. You can correct me if I am wrong; but I believe that, at that time, the live attenuated influenza vaccine was available. It is possible, because of issues like this, that is the reason that this season it was not recommended? There are other factors like suzy_q2010 points out. For all practical purposes; nobody should have received the live virus this season. It should have been impossible to spread the disease from 'inactivated' (dead) virus.
Now they just need to test the virulity of the shed virus. Technically viruses can be shed that are not as infectious as other shed viruses. For example norovirus can be shed in feces for weeks to months after a person is sick with it but virility of the the shed virules is unknown but is presumed to be lessened over time. So with noro the day that person is expelling fluids/ solids they are shedding highly virulent virus particles; however, 5 weeks later they are still shedding the virus but it might not be so contagious.
It's an interesting study that warrants further replication studies with larger sample sizes.
Did you read the article? It found that those who were vaccinated spread the flu, and those who vaccinated for at least two years in a row spread the flu 6.3 times the rate of people who weren't vaccinated.
Those are stunning and very compelling statistics as to who is actually spreading the flu and why. Maybe it explains how the vaccinated are getting sick. They are infecting and reinfected each other on some level.
Think of the low efficacy of the flu shot. Now all these people are all around each other spreading the disease at 6.3 times = 630% MORE than people who never were vaccinated.
It's an incredible statistic regarding the safety of this vaccination. It shows that this vaccination could in fact HARM others by making them sick at a higher rate than wild disease.
We cannot argue what to do in this forum. But I think the implications are pretty clear.
Yes, that's what I thought you were going to argue but you just couldn't say. No comment. Do what you want...and stay far away from flu clinics.
The flu vaccine contains dead virus, if they were live the shot itself would make you sick. No way you can infect someone else by getting dead virus injected into you.
I wonder if those who were vaccinated felt less compelled to stay cautious when it comes to social interactions, travel, hand washing/antibacterial gel etc. versus those who did not. It could stand to reason that those who were vaccinated felt less vulnerable and in such were more interactive. Just a hypothesis..
Did you read the article? It found that those who were vaccinated spread the flu, and those who vaccinated for at least two years in a row spread the flu 6.3 times the rate of people who weren't vaccinated.
Those are stunning and very compelling statistics as to who is actually spreading the flu and why. Maybe it explains how the vaccinated are getting sick. They are infecting and reinfected each other on some level.
Think of the low efficacy of the flu shot. Now all these people are all around each other spreading the disease at 6.3 times = 630% MORE than people who never were vaccinated.
It's an incredible statistic regarding the safety of this vaccination. It shows that this vaccination could in fact HARM others by making them sick at a higher rate than wild disease.
We cannot argue what to do in this forum. But I think the implications are pretty clear.
Actually I think the fact that the study likely used information from a populace that was vaccinated with a LIVE virus which is not the method recommended at this point means that PAST seasons might have been impacted by people who received a flu shot w/live virus and then went on to spread the flu...
But LIVE virus is NOT the method recommended now for vaccinations and since NO ONE WAS TESTED THIS SEASON there is NO PROOF this season's severity has anything to do with vaccinated people spreading the flu
if you want to make conclusions on scientific data then use the SCIENCE---not the suppositions--
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
