Why not have double blind studies for the flu vaccine? (flu shots, infect)

[twiggy]

I see this as a very heated debate on this forum,( and everywhere else), Mod cut: no comments on moderator actions but, I would like to get your views on how you would feel about a current "double blind study" of the regular seasonal flu vaccine? Do you see it as unethical? Or would you like to see one done?
Here are both sides discussed, as well as other points, what do you think?

Does the Flu Vaccine Work? – The Renegade Health Show Episode #418 | The Renegade Health Show – Fun and Educational TV on Raw Food, Vegan Diet, Healthy Living

Dana Ullman: The Questionable Efficacy Of Flu Vaccines... And The Pandemic That Wasn't

FEEL FREE TO ADD YOUR OWN> WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME MORE

Seasonal flu vaccine mismatch : Effect Measure (make sure you read the "chicken soup" link, really interesting) lol


VaccineEthics.org: News (a lot of info here, go to the ethics section)

I might add that contrary to popular belief most drug companies dropped out of the vaccination business because it doesn't bring in good money. The trials to pass it are expensive and you are not aloud to charge much money for it. Or so I have read: Feel free to debate this>>>>

[Viralmd]

It's been done: Efficacy and safety of a live attenuated influenza...[Vaccine. 2009] - PubMed Result

Comparative efficacy of inactivated and live atten...[N Engl J Med. 2009] - PubMed Result

Efficacy and safety of 1 and 2 doses of live atten...[Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009] - PubMed Result

[twiggy]

Originally Posted by Viralmd

It's been done: Efficacy and safety of a live attenuated influenza...[Vaccine. 2009] - PubMed Result

Comparative efficacy of inactivated and live atten...[N Engl J Med. 2009] - PubMed Result

Efficacy and safety of 1 and 2 doses of live atten...[Pediatr Infect Dis J. 2009] - PubMed Result

These were in Africa and Brazil, not by the U.S. or U.S. based science. The Gov. always uses that Africa study. I have both of those in my thread, but why haven't we done one here? Maybe there has, but hard to find if they have. Is it an ethical decision do you think? Or should the U.S. be allowed to do them here? Just interested, I'm bias in my opinion about the shot, haven't thought about it either way as of yet.

Nice to have the trials on here in a separate manner though, people don't understand that getting the flu shots or mist won't necessarily protect them from the flu or complications but that they are for a "heard" immunity. This is the focus on all vaccinations. I think most people think of it as an individual thing. "I'm afraid of the flu so....., then they get the flu anyway and think it doesn't work. It doesn't work on all people, they should realize it's a "heard effect". As a matter of fact, from the studies I have seen it's a combination of people getting the flu in combination with those vaccinated that cause the heard immunity. We sort of need both so far, but science is hoping to one day rid our need for the natural.

People need to decide wether we are going to work together on this and it's worth the risks to do it artificially or let it happen naturally I guess. If we do it artificially it won't be without risk, but neither will the natural course. So far, most people don't include the natural process of the viruses burn out. If people understand what we are doing medically with the vaccine maybe they can understand how the side effects or ineffectiveness works with the heard mentality. It has to be something you understand I think, and are willing to understand to further medical advances. Did you read about the other vaccine testing on my thread? Very interesting stuff once you get into it, don't you think?

Now this one was in the U.S. but I'm not sure if it was a controlled study with background. Good find for me though, it's from your resources.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10411194?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez. Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.P ubmed_Discovery_RA&linkpos=2&log$=relatedarticles& logdbfrom=pubmed
This link won't post as a link but it's on the same page as yours to the side.

Although it found no difference in the number of flu cases between the two (vac or not vac) it did find less complications, work loss and doc visits from the inoculated.

[Viralmd]

Oh, please....If a paper that's published in the New England Journal of Medicine isn't good enough for you (as well as others published in highly-regarded, peer reviewed journals), then you're looking for excuses not to even look at the data. No amount of data would be convincing in that case.

[twiggy]

Originally Posted by Viralmd

Oh, please....If a paper that's published in the New England Journal of Medicine isn't good enough for you (as well as others published in highly-regarded, peer reviewed journals), then you're looking for excuses not to even look at the data. No amount of data would be convincing in that case.

Convincing me of what exactly????? I didn't asked to be convinced one way or the other????

Oh, I'm sorry, I think you didn't really read my thread or something???? Are you anti vaccine? I don't understand what you think isn't good enough for me here????
Can't think of the sore spot I just hit with you???

I thanked you properly for the other study I found from your resources, it was in the U.S. I was happy to find it. Um, I really am confused here Viralmd?


It doesn't seem to me you read my entire thread, but thats ok, opinion is opinion. I know it's not required to read through it all but if you do you will get the full picture. I go on Pub med all the time for school. Nice site. I think you misunderstood on my part what I was looking for, but I could have worded it different.


Mod cut: TOS violation

[twiggy]

Originally Posted by Viralmd

Oh, please....If a paper that's published in the New England Journal of Medicine isn't good enough for you (as well as others published in highly-regarded, peer reviewed journals), then you're looking for excuses not to even look at the data. No amount of data would be convincing in that case.

Oh yes its great, the last one I posted is from the New England Journal as well! Very helpful, I have found a host of others but won't bog down the thread with them.
Writing a paper for school, it's very exciting how truly deep the ethics of study in this country is debated as well as the truth about the lack of funding being one of the main reasons.
Are you a medical professional? Your name implies that you are into Germatology? Or the like?

[Morphous01]

Originally Posted by twiggy

I see this as a very heated debate on this forum,( and everywhere else),

Originally Posted by twiggy

It doesn't seem to me you read my entire thread, but thats ok, opinion is opinion.


.....

Mod cut: No comments on moderator actions


From what I can tell, "certain" posters seem to have a problem with people like myself and others who wish to post alternative information. You know, you can go through all my post but you won't find a pattern of me aggressively trying to "debunk" others who are Pro vaccines. I don't understand, what are "they" so afraid of if my source is a "quack?" Why is my source ALWAYS a "quack" or some "conspiracy theory?"


Anyhow, as they say, TRUTH stands on it's own two feet, and that's what I stand for; TRUTH, so to help people who are lost in all the confusion, people should be able to post what they want; people who are in the middle should then decide what's best for themselves, and their family's.

I say this because your best decision is only as good as the information you have, and once that decision is made, those people will be stuck with the consequences; not some doctor or some person posting alternative information.

Lastly, all this document wars (that no disagreeing party reads) and childish (e.g. tinfoil hat, quack) epithets that are directed towards each other, it really just needs to stop.

[twiggy]

Originally Posted by Morphous01

Mod cut: No comments on moderator actions


From what I can tell, "certain" posters seem to have a problem with people like myself and others who wish to post alternative information. You know, you can go through all my post but you won't find a pattern of me aggressively trying to "debunk" others who are Pro vaccines. I don't understand, what are "they" so afraid of if my source is a "quack?" Why is my source ALWAYS a "quack" or some "conspiracy theory?"


Anyhow, as they say, TRUTH stands on it's own two feet, and that's what I stand for; TRUTH, so to help people who are lost in all the confusion, people should be able to post what they want; people who are in the middle should then decide what's best for themselves, and their family's.

I say this because your best decision is only as good as the information you have, and once that decision is made, those people will be stuck with the consequences; not some doctor or some person posting alternative information.

Lastly, all this document wars (that no disagreeing party reads) and childish (e.g. tinfoil hat, quack) epithets that are directed towards each other, it really just needs to stop.

You're so right! It does need to stop, and I for one will stop on my side, it's not worth it and it can go on forever.

Personal choice is just what it implies and doesn't have anything to do with who is right or who is wrong. That's why the debates can go on and on.

Thanks for your reply, heres to freedom of choice!!!